Claude 24f816b6a3
Consolidate 22 sibling repos into layered organism structure
Place useful parts of the surrounding repos into sica-fondt by layer, per the
body model (Ada = membrane; brain/endocrine/capabilities/knowledge non-Ada):

- brain/        LLM reasoning + providers (dapr, hermes, MoMoA)
- capabilities/ REPRAG sidecars: hermes tools/skills, dapr tools, parallel
                dispatch, A51 channels, and the OSINT cluster
- knowledge/    LORAG corpus: 754 cyber-skills, agency personas, secure-coding,
                MITRE ATT&CK data
- reference/    defensive threat-reference (C3, shhbruh doc) + AdaYaml parser

License handling: AGPL sources (worldosint, advanced_evolution, mercury,
Reticulum) and GPL DeTTECT are SPEC-only clean-room/port descriptions — no
copyleft code copied. MIT/Apache/data parts copied as working trees.

Safety: shhbruh escape/persistence material and C3 covert-C2 kept as reference
only, not wired into the running organism. See CONSOLIDATION.md.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01UehUqEXXJJCsHoA4voCU5c
2026-06-10 06:53:01 +00:00

3.3 KiB

name description domain subdomain tags version author license d3fend_techniques nist_csf
hunting-for-spearphishing-indicators Hunt for spearphishing campaign indicators across email logs, endpoint telemetry, and network data to detect targeted email attacks. cybersecurity threat-hunting
threat-hunting
mitre-attack
spearphishing
initial-access
email-security
t1566
proactive-detection
1.0 mahipal Apache-2.0
File Metadata Consistency Validation
Application Protocol Command Analysis
Identifier Analysis
Content Format Conversion
Message Analysis
DE.CM-01
DE.AE-02
DE.AE-07
ID.RA-05

Hunting For Spearphishing Indicators

When to Use

  • When proactively hunting for indicators of hunting for spearphishing indicators in the environment
  • After threat intelligence indicates active campaigns using these techniques
  • During incident response to scope compromise related to these techniques
  • When EDR or SIEM alerts trigger on related indicators
  • During periodic security assessments and purple team exercises

Prerequisites

  • EDR platform with process and network telemetry (CrowdStrike, MDE, SentinelOne)
  • SIEM with relevant log data ingested (Splunk, Elastic, Sentinel)
  • Sysmon deployed with comprehensive configuration
  • Windows Security Event Log forwarding enabled
  • Threat intelligence feeds for IOC correlation

Workflow

  1. Formulate Hypothesis: Define a testable hypothesis based on threat intelligence or ATT&CK gap analysis.
  2. Identify Data Sources: Determine which logs and telemetry are needed to validate or refute the hypothesis.
  3. Execute Queries: Run detection queries against SIEM and EDR platforms to collect relevant events.
  4. Analyze Results: Examine query results for anomalies, correlating across multiple data sources.
  5. Validate Findings: Distinguish true positives from false positives through contextual analysis.
  6. Correlate Activity: Link findings to broader attack chains and threat actor TTPs.
  7. Document and Report: Record findings, update detection rules, and recommend response actions.

Key Concepts

Concept Description
T1566.001 Spearphishing Attachment
T1566.002 Spearphishing Link
T1566.003 Spearphishing via Service

Tools & Systems

Tool Purpose
CrowdStrike Falcon EDR telemetry and threat detection
Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Advanced hunting with KQL
Splunk Enterprise SIEM log analysis with SPL queries
Elastic Security Detection rules and investigation timeline
Sysmon Detailed Windows event monitoring
Velociraptor Endpoint artifact collection and hunting
Sigma Rules Cross-platform detection rule format

Common Scenarios

  1. Scenario 1: Macro-enabled Excel executing PowerShell downloader
  2. Scenario 2: HTML smuggling delivering ISO with LNK payload
  3. Scenario 3: Credential harvesting link as SharePoint notification
  4. Scenario 4: QR code phishing in PDF attachment

Output Format

Hunt ID: TH-HUNTIN-[DATE]-[SEQ]
Technique: T1566.001
Host: [Hostname]
User: [Account context]
Evidence: [Log entries, process trees, network data]
Risk Level: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]
Recommended Action: [Containment, investigation, monitoring]