
security-incident-reporting
by dirnbauer
AI-augmented development environment with Agent Skills for enterprise TYPO3 projects (Cursor IDE)
SKILL.md
name: security-incident-reporting description: Security Incident Report templates drawing from NIST/SANS. DDoS post-mortem, CVE correlation, timeline documentation, and blameless root cause analysis. version: 1.0.0 triggers:
- incident report
- post-mortem
- sir
- ddos analysis
- security reporting
- root cause analysis
- cve correlation
- nist 800-61
- sans incident response
Security Incident Reporting
Comprehensive framework for documenting and analyzing security incidents, drawing from NIST SP 800-61 and SANS methodologies.
When to Use
- After a security incident (DDoS, breach, vulnerability exploitation)
- Creating post-mortem documentation
- Communicating with stakeholders (C-level, legal, security teams)
- Correlating attack patterns with known CVEs
- Establishing incident response metrics (MTTR, dwell time)
Related Skills
- security-audit - Pre-incident vulnerability assessment
- typo3-security - TYPO3 hardening
- SKILL-TYPO3.md - TYPO3-specific incident reporting
1. Incident Response Framework
NIST SP 800-61 / SANS Harmonization
| Phase | NIST | SANS | Documentation Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Preparation | Preparation | Runbooks, contacts, tools |
| 2 | Detection & Analysis | Identification | Initial detection, triage |
| 3 | Containment | Containment | Isolation actions, timeline |
| 4 | Eradication | Eradication | Root cause removal |
| 5 | Recovery | Recovery | Service restoration |
| 6 | Post-Incident | Lessons Learned | Post-mortem, improvements |
Documentation Principle
Logbuch-Prinzip: Document in real-time during the incident, then consolidate into the post-mortem report. Never create reports retrospectively from memory.
2. Severity Rating Systems
NCISS (National Cyber Incident Scoring System)
| Level | Score | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency (1) | 100 | Nation-state attack, critical infrastructure |
| Severe (2) | 80-99 | Significant impact, data exfiltration |
| High (3) | 60-79 | Service disruption, potential data loss |
| Medium (4) | 40-59 | Limited impact, contained breach |
| Low (5) | 20-39 | Minor incident, no data loss |
| Baseline (6) | 0-19 | Informational, false positive |
DDoS Resiliency Score (DRS)
| Level | Description | Typical Bandwidth |
|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | Simple Floods | < 1 Gbps |
| 3-4 | Sophisticated Multi-Vector | 1-5 Gbps |
| 5-6 | Advanced (State-Actor Level) | 5-100 Gbps |
| 7 | Extreme (Hyper-Volumetric) | > 100 Gbps |
CVSS Integration
For vulnerability-based incidents, include CVSS v3.1 base score from the security-audit skill.
3. Incident Report Template
Module A: Metadata & Executive Summary
# Security Incident Report
## Metadata
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Incident ID | SIR-2026-001 |
| Classification | Confidential |
| Status | Closed / Active / Under Investigation |
| Detection Time | 2026-01-21 14:32 UTC |
| Resolution Time | 2026-01-21 15:17 UTC |
| MTTR | 45 minutes |
| Severity | High (NCISS: 65) |
| Lead Analyst | Jane Doe |
| Affected Systems | web-cluster-01, cdn-edge-eu |
## Executive Summary (max 200 words)
On [DATE], our monitoring systems detected [INCIDENT TYPE] targeting [SYSTEMS].
The attack [IMPACT DESCRIPTION]. Through [RESPONSE ACTIONS], normal operations
were restored within [TIMEFRAME]. [DATA IMPACT STATEMENT].
### Business Impact
- Service Availability: [Degraded/Offline for X minutes]
- Data Impact: [None/Potential exposure of X records]
- Financial Impact: [Estimated cost]
- Reputation Impact: [Public/Internal]
Module B: Timeline (Chronological Analysis)
## Incident Timeline
| Time (UTC) | Event | Source | Action Taken |
|------------|-------|--------|--------------|
| 14:32 | Traffic spike detected | Cloudflare Alert | On-call notified |
| 14:35 | 5x baseline traffic confirmed | Grafana | Incident declared |
| 14:38 | Geo-blocking activated | Cloudflare | EU/US traffic filtered |
| 14:42 | Attack vector identified: UDP amplification | DPI Analysis | Null-route for UDP/427 |
| 14:55 | Traffic normalized | Monitoring | Mitigation confirmed |
| 15:17 | All systems stable | Status page | Incident closed |
### Dwell Time Analysis
- Time to Detection (TTD): 0 minutes (automated)
- Time to Containment (TTC): 10 minutes
- Time to Eradication (TTE): 23 minutes
- Time to Recovery (TTR): 45 minutes
Module C: Technical Analysis & IoCs
## Technical Analysis
### Attack Vectors (MITRE ATT&CK)
- T1498: Network Denial of Service
- T1498.001: Direct Network Flood
- T1498.002: Reflection Amplification
### Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)
#### Network Artifacts
| Type | Value | Context |
|------|-------|---------|
| IP Range | 192.0.2.0/24 | Source (spoofed) |
| ASN | AS12345 | Amplification source |
| Port | UDP/427 | SLP Amplification |
| Signature | \x00\x00\x00\x00SLP | Payload pattern |
#### System Artifacts
| Type | Value | Hash (SHA256) |
|------|-------|---------------|
| Modified File | /var/www/shell.php | a1b2c3... |
| New User | backdoor_admin | N/A |
| Cron Job | /tmp/.hidden/beacon | d4e5f6... |
### Root Cause Analysis (5-Whys)
1. Why did the attack succeed? → Amplification ports were exposed
2. Why were ports exposed? → Firewall rules not updated after migration
3. Why weren't rules updated? → No automated validation in deployment
4. Why no automation? → Security review not in CI/CD pipeline
5. Why not in pipeline? → Technical debt, prioritized features
**Root Cause**: Missing security validation in deployment pipeline
4. DDoS Post-Mortem Analysis
Metrics Table
| Metric | Value | Threshold | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peak Bandwidth | 45 Gbps | 10 Gbps | Exceeded |
| Peak Packets/sec | 12M PPS | 5M PPS | Exceeded |
| Peak Requests/sec | 850K RPS | 100K RPS | Exceeded |
| Unique Source IPs | 145,000 | N/A | Amplification |
| Attack Duration | 45 min | N/A | - |
| Geographic Spread | 89 countries | N/A | Global botnet |
Attack Vector Classification
| Vector | % of Traffic | Type | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| UDP Flood | 60% | Volumetric | Null-route |
| SYN Flood | 25% | Protocol | SYN cookies |
| HTTP Flood | 15% | Application | Rate limiting |
Multi-Vector Detection
Was this a smoke-screen attack?
├── Volumetric attack started: 14:32
├── Application-layer probing detected: 14:38
├── Login brute-force attempts: 14:40-14:45
└── Conclusion: Coordinated multi-vector attack
5. CVE Correlation for DDoS
Map attack signatures to known vulnerabilities for threat intelligence.
Amplification Vector CVE Table
| Attack Type | Port | Amplification Factor | CVE | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NTP Monlist | UDP/123 | 556x | CVE-2013-5211 | NTP mode 7 monlist |
| Memcached | UDP/11211 | 51,000x | CVE-2018-1000115 | UDP reflection |
| CLDAP | UDP/389 | 70x | CVE-2020-9490 | LDAP reflection |
| SLP | UDP/427 | 2,200x | CVE-2023-29552 | Service Location Protocol |
| DNS | UDP/53 | 54x | Various | Open resolver abuse |
| SSDP | UDP/1900 | 30x | Various | UPnP reflection |
| Chargen | UDP/19 | 358x | CVE-1999-0103 | Character generator |
Analysis Example
## CVE Correlation Analysis
Traffic analysis shows 40% of UDP flood originated from port 427.
Deep Packet Inspection confirmed payloads typical for CVE-2023-29552.
**Conclusion**: Botnet leveraging unpatched VMware ESXi instances as
SLP reflectors. Recommend:
1. Verify our infrastructure is not acting as reflector
2. Block UDP/427 at edge
3. Report to upstream provider
6. Impact Assessment Matrix
Operational Impact
| Category | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Availability | Critical | Complete outage for 15 minutes |
| Performance | High | 50% degradation for 30 minutes |
| Collateral | Medium | API gateway affected |
Financial Impact
| Category | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Lost Revenue | $15,000 |
| Scrubbing Overage | $2,500 |
| Incident Response | $5,000 (8 person-hours) |
| Total | $22,500 |
Reputation Impact
| Channel | Severity | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| Social Media | Medium | Prepared statement |
| B2B Partners | Low | Direct notification |
| Press | None | No external coverage |
7. Blameless Post-Mortem
Principles
- Focus on systems, not individuals: "Why did the process allow X?" not "Who did X?"
- Assume good intentions: Everyone acted with the best information available
- Learn, don't punish: Goal is improvement, not blame
- Share openly: Publish internally for organizational learning
Post-Mortem Template
## Post-Mortem: [Incident Title]
### What Happened
[Factual description of the incident]
### What Went Well
- Detection was automated (0 min TTD)
- On-call responded within SLA
- Communication was clear
### What Went Wrong
- Firewall rules were outdated
- No alerting for UDP traffic spikes
- Runbook was incomplete
### Action Items
| ID | Action | Owner | Due Date | Status |
|----|--------|-------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Add security validation to CI/CD | @devops | 2026-02-01 | Open |
| 2 | Update runbook with DDoS procedures | @security | 2026-01-28 | Open |
| 3 | Implement UDP traffic alerting | @sre | 2026-02-05 | Open |
### Lessons Learned
- Automated security gates prevent configuration drift
- Regular runbook reviews are essential
- Multi-vector attacks require layered defense
8. Report Distribution
Classification Levels
| Level | Audience | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Executive | C-Level, Board | Summary, business impact, remediation status |
| Technical | Security Team, SOC | Full IoCs, TTPs, forensic details |
| Legal | Legal, Compliance | Data impact, regulatory implications |
| Public | Customers, Press | Sanitized summary, no technical details |
Retention Requirements
| Document Type | Retention | Storage |
|---|---|---|
| Full Incident Report | 7 years | Encrypted archive |
| IoC Data | 2 years | Threat Intelligence Platform |
| Logs & Evidence | 1 year | Immutable storage |
9. Checklists
Pre-Incident Preparation
- Incident response runbooks documented
- On-call rotation established
- Communication templates prepared
- Evidence collection tools ready
- Stakeholder contact list updated
During Incident
- Incident declared and logged
- Timeline documentation started
- Evidence preserved (logs, packets)
- Stakeholders notified
- Status page updated
Post-Incident
- Full incident report completed
- Post-mortem meeting scheduled
- Action items assigned and tracked
- Lessons learned documented
- Controls validated/improved
References
Credits & Attribution
This skill draws from the "Handbuch für Advanced Security Incident Reporting" methodology, incorporating elements of NIST SP 800-61, SANS frameworks, and industry best practices.
Developed by webconsulting.at for the Claude skill collection.
Score
Total Score
Based on repository quality metrics
SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている
ライセンスが設定されている
100文字以上の説明がある
GitHub Stars 100以上
3ヶ月以内に更新がある
10回以上フォークされている
オープンIssueが50未満
プログラミング言語が設定されている
1つ以上のタグが設定されている
Reviews
Reviews coming soon