agentleFS
briiirussellbriiirussell/cybersecurity-skills/skills/threat-hunting/SKILL.md

threat-hunting

Skill489 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Conduct proactive, hypothesis-driven threat hunts — search SIEM / EDR / logs for adversaries who haven't tripped an alert yet. ATT&CK-driven, hypothesis-based methodology. Use when the user mentions 'threat hunting,' 'proactive hunt,' 'TaHiTI,' 'PEAK framework,' 'MITRE ATT&CK hunt,' 'hypothesis-driven hunt,' 'hunt hypothesis,' 'living off the land,' 'LOLBins,' 'beaconing,' 'lateral movement detection,' 'data staging,' 'persistence hunting,' or wants to find threats that have evaded existing detections.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run the hunt. Three execution patterns:

    line 46
  2. Distinctive:

    Pattern A — Pivot from indicator: Start with a specific IOC (IP, hash, domain) and look for any host or user that touched it.

    line 48
  3. Distinctive:

    Pattern B — Pivot from technique: Start with an ATT&CK technique and look for any host doing that.

    line 58
  4. Distinctive:

    Don't leave hits in the "unknown" state.

    line 89
  5. Very specific:

    If you found something, write a detection rule so future occurrences fire automatically (see siem-detection)

    line 97
  6. Distinctive:

    If you didn't find anything, document the hunt — query, scope, time window, conclusion.

    line 98
  7. Distinctive:

    If the hunt was hard because of missing log coverage, document the gap and create a backlog item to fix log ingestion

    line 99
  8. Distinctive:

    Never query SIEM / EDR data outside the user's authority — even if the dataset is available, scope matters

    line 225

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Threat Hunting — Proactive Adversary Detection

Hunt for adversaries who are already inside but haven't tripped an alert. Distinct from incident-triage (reactive, alert is firing) and from siem-detection (engineer rules so future alerts fire). This skill is the proactive layer — assume something has slipped through, look for it.

Hunting is hypothesis-driven, not browse-driven. "Let's look around the SIEM" is not hunting; "let's check for the specific pattern of T1059.001 (PowerShell) being launched by Office processes" is.

Cross-references: siem-detection (queries you write here often graduate to detection rules), incident-triage (what to do if a hunt confirms a finding), breach-patterns (a rich source of hunt hypotheses), disk-forensics (deeper analysis on confirmed hits), agent-supply-chain-audit (hunting for malicious or rug-pulled AI coding-agent extensions on developer machines), secrets-audit (its exfiltration-collector domain list is a ready-made egress hunt: DNS / proxy hits to webhook.site, requestbin, ngrok, or chat webhooks from servers or CI runners), malware-triage (the hashes, imphash and behaviours to hunt for, from a triaged sample).

Authorization

Hunt only in environments the user owns or is authorized to investigate, with the logs and telemetry they've given you access to. Hunting reads; it doesn't contain. If a hunt finds confirmed malicious activity, stop and hand off to incident-triage instead of acting on hosts or accounts. Hunting in employee activity stays within what HR and legal have authorized.

Methodology — PEAK framework

The PEAK (Prepare, Execute, Act, Knowledge) framework from Splunk SURGe — the most actionable hunting methodology I've seen.

Step 1: Prepare

Form the hypothesis. Strong hypotheses share three properties:

  1. Specific — names a technique, log source, and expected artifact
  2. Testable — describes what evidence would confirm or deny
  3. Bounded — has a defined time window and scope

Bad hypothesis: "Look for anomalies in the SIEM" Good hypothesis: "Within the last 30 days, no service account should have run interactive PowerShell with -encodedCommand flag (T1059.001 + T1027). Search Sysmon event 1 for parent process = service-account-launched scheduled task, child = powershell.exe, command line contains -enc or -encodedcommand."

Hunt hypothesis sources, ranked by yield:

SourceYieldEffort
Recent incident (yours or peer's)HighLow — pattern is concrete
breach-patterns skill catalogHighLow — generalizes from public breaches
MITRE ATT&CK technique you don't have a detection forMediumMedium — read the technique, design the hunt
Threat intel report (CrowdStrike, Mandiant, vendor reports)MediumMedium — current patterns
Anomaly: "this number went up — why"LowLow — often FP, occasionally gold

Step 2: Execute

Run the hunt. Three execution patterns:

Pattern A — Pivot from indicator. Start with a specific IOC (IP, hash, domain) and look for any host or user that touched it.

// Sentinel — pivot from a suspicious IP across all log sources
union *
| where TimeGenerated > ago(90d)
| where contains("198.51.100.42")
| project TimeGenerated, Type, Computer, _ResourceId

Pattern B — Pivot from technique. Start with an ATT&CK technique and look for any host doing that.

// Splunk — T1547.001 Registry Run Keys persistence
index=sysmon EventCode=13 
  TargetObject="*\\Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Run\\*"
| stats values(Details) by Computer, User
| where len(values(Details)) > 1

Pattern C — Anomaly hunt. Establish a baseline; look for outliers.

// Sentinel — service accounts authenticating from new geographies
SigninLogs
| where TimeGenerated > ago(30d)
| where UserType == "Service"
| summarize Countries = make_set(Location) by UserPrincipalName
| where array_length(Countries) > 1

Step 3: Act

For every hit, three possible outcomes:

OutcomeAction
Confirmed maliciousEscalate to incident-triage immediately
Confirmed benignDocument and move on
Unknown / unable to confirmDeepen investigation (host artifacts, network traffic, user interview)

Don't leave hits in the "unknown" state. Either resolve, or hand off with a documented next-step.

Step 4: Knowledge

The hunt's value isn't the one hit — it's the artifacts.

For each hunt:

  • If you found something, write a detection rule so future occurrences fire automatically (see siem-detection)
  • If you didn't find anything, document the hunt — query, scope, time window, conclusion. Future hunters won't re-do it
  • If the hunt was hard because of missing log coverage, document the gap and create a backlog item to fix log ingestion

Hunts that don't produce artifacts are work without compounding return. The whole point of the methodology is to turn every hunt into either a rule, a documented dead-end, or a coverage improvement.

High-yield hunt catalog

Persistence

  • Scheduled tasks created outside business hours — schtasks.exe /create from Sysmon event 1 + EventCode 4698 from Windows Security
  • Run-key persistence — registry writes to HKCU\...\Run, HKLM\...\Run, HKCU\...\RunOnce
  • Service installation outside known software-install windows — EventCode 7045
  • WMI persistence — __EventFilter and CommandLineEventConsumer subscriptions
  • Login items / launch daemons (macOS) — /Library/LaunchDaemons/*.plist, ~/Library/LaunchAgents/*.plist
  • Cron / systemd timers (Linux) — /etc/cron.*, /etc/systemd/system/*.timer, user crontabs

Developer workstations (dev-tool backdoors)

The patterns malicious IDE extensions, MCP servers and packages use, so the hunt doesn't depend on one incident's IOCs (for those, and the response, see incident-triage → dev-tool compromise):

  • authorized_keys on laptops at all — most dev laptops shouldn't accept inbound SSH. Then keys with service-like comments (svc-*, telemetry, backup) or a recent modification time
  • User-level persistence with vendor-impersonating names — ~/Library/LaunchAgents/com.apple.*, com.google.*, scheduled tasks named SysMon or Microsoft*, @reboot user crontabs
  • Executable hidden scripts in ~/.config/
  • Reverse tunnels — ssh -R or autossh processes; StrictHostKeyChecking=no with UserKnownHostsFile=/dev/null in any command line
  • Remote Login / OpenSSH Server turned on without a ticket — macOS systemsetup -getremotelogin, Windows OpenSSH.Server capability
  • Recently changed extension.js in IDE extension folders whose first bytes aren't the bundler's banner

Defense evasion

  • PowerShell with -EncodedCommand — base64-encoded scripts are evasion 80% of the time
  • certutil.exe -decode — LOLBin used to decode dropper payloads
  • Sysmon EventCode 7 (Image loaded) for known-bad DLLs from non-standard paths
  • Process executing from %TEMP%, %APPDATA%, \Users\Public — non-standard exec paths
  • Command-line obfuscation patterns — large amounts of ^, backticks, cmd /c echo y | ...

Credential access

  • LSASS access from unexpected processes — Sysmon EventCode 10 with TargetImage = lsass.exe and SourceImage not in [mssense.exe, NisSrv.exe, ...]
  • procdump.exe or comsvcs.dll use — process-dumping LOLBins
  • NTDS.dit access outside backup windows — domain controller DB
  • AWS GetSessionToken or AssumeRole from new IPs — credential capture pivot
  • OAuth consent grants for high-scope applications — see iam-audit

Discovery

  • net group "Domain Admins" or equivalent enumeration commands
  • AD service ticket requests for high-value SPNs (Kerberoasting prep) — EventCode 4769 with RC4 encryption
  • whoami /all, quser, nltest /domain_trusts — situational awareness commands run by service accounts (humans rarely run these)
  • Cloud API listing — ListBuckets, ListUsers, DescribeInstances from unusual principals

Lateral movement

  • WMI execution to remote hosts — Sysmon EventCode 1 with wmic.exe or Invoke-WmiMethod
  • PsExec / remote service creation patterns — EventCode 7045 with random service name
  • Remote registry connections to unusual hosts
  • SSH key reuse — one private key authenticating to many hosts in a short window
  • AWS / GCP AssumeRole chains across accounts — pivot detection

Collection / staging / exfil

  • Large-volume reads from cloud storage by single principal — unusual S3 / GCS access patterns
  • Archive creation patterns — Compress-Archive, 7z.exe, tar, zip operating on directories outside user home
  • DNS queries to recently-registered domains — exfil over DNS or C2 beacon resolution
  • Outbound TLS to high-risk geographies — depends on your organization's normal pattern
  • Beaconing patterns — regular-interval connections (every N seconds ± jitter) to the same destination over hours

Cloud-specific

  • IAM credential exfiltration patterns — GetCredentialReport, GenerateCredentialReport from unusual principals
  • IMDS access from unusual processes / containers — anything reaching 169.254.169.254 that isn't the cloud SDK
  • CloudTrail / Audit Log tampering attempts — StopLogging, DeleteTrail, log-bucket access from non-logging principals
  • Cross-region resource creation by single principal in short window — pivot or coin-mining setup

Identity-provider-specific

  • OAuth app grants of high-scope permissions (Google Workspace, M365) — adversary technique for persistence outside the user's password
  • MFA method enrollment from new device — attacker registering their own MFA after stealing a session
  • Sign-ins from impossible geographies — geolocation jumps that exceed travel time
  • Service-account authentication from new client / new IP — service accounts should be predictable

Tools

  • SIEM — Splunk, Sentinel, Elastic, Chronicle, Sumo, Wazuh
  • EDR — CrowdStrike (RTR), SentinelOne (deep visibility), Microsoft Defender (advanced hunting), Carbon Black
  • Sysmon — open-source endpoint logging on Windows, output to SIEM
  • osquery — SQL queries over endpoint state (cross-platform)
  • Velociraptor — open-source live response and hunting framework (much more capable than free EDR)
  • Zeek — network metadata for traffic analysis
  • MITRE ATT&CK Navigator — coverage visualization
  • Hunt-Evil — hunting playbook content (open-source)
  • MaxMind GeoIP — geolocation lookup for IP-based hunts

Output Format

# Threat Hunt Report
## Hunt name: [descriptive — e.g., "Office process → encoded PowerShell"]
## Hypothesis: [specific, testable, bounded]
## Date range: [from - to]
## Hunter: [name]

### Methodology
- ATT&CK technique(s): [TXXXX.NNN]
- Data sources queried: [list]
- Query / queries:
  [the actual SIEM query]

### Findings
| Hit ID | Host / User / Resource | Outcome | Notes |
|--------|------------------------|---------|-------|

### Conclusion
- [Confirmed malicious / All benign / Inconclusive]
- [Confidence level — Low / Medium / High]

### Artifacts produced
- [ ] Detection rule added (link)
- [ ] Coverage gap documented (link)
- [ ] Negative-result documentation filed (link)

### Recommended follow-up
[Anything that needs deeper investigation, escalation, or future hunts]

Boundaries

  • Hunt only environments the user has authorization for
  • Never query SIEM / EDR data outside the user's authority — even if the dataset is available, scope matters
  • For confirmed-malicious findings, escalate to incident-triage immediately — do not continue hunting and risk tipping the adversary
  • Live response actions (host isolation, account disablement) are incident response, not hunting — escalate
  • Refuse to use threat-hunting techniques to surveil employees beyond what HR / legal has authorized
  • Negative hunt results are valuable evidence, not failure — document and credit accordingly

References

  • PEAK Threat Hunting Framework (Splunk SURGe)
  • TaHiTI (Targeted Hunting integrating Threat Intelligence) — Dutch model
  • MITRE ATT&CK
  • "The ThreatHunter Playbook" (Cyb3rWard0g) — open-source content
  • Sigma rules repo — many rules can become hunt queries
  • "Practical Threat Intelligence and Data-Driven Threat Hunting" — Valentina Costa-Gazcón
  • David Bianco's "Pyramid of Pain" — IOC value hierarchy
  • SANS FOR508 / FOR578 course materials
  • Velociraptor community hunt content

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.