Now liveThe Skillselion MCP - thousands of ranked skills, loaded into your agent mid-task. No install.Get it →
mukul975 avatar

Analyzing Campaign Attribution Evidence

  • 363 installs
  • 27.3k repo stars
  • Updated August 2, 2026
  • mukul975/anthropic-cybersecurity-skills

Produce structured cyber threat intelligence reports that tie campaign evidence to MITRE ATT&CK, IOCs, and confidence-rated recommendations after an incident or hunt.

About

Analyzing Campaign Attribution Evidence is an agent skill packaged as a cyber threat intelligence report template for turning raw campaign clues into a shareable attribution narrative. It targets solo builders, indie SaaS operators, and small security-conscious teams who wear analyst hats without a full CTI desk—especially when you need to document who likely ran a campaign, what techniques they used, and what to do next. The workflow centers on a CTI-style report with executive summary, evidence-backed findings, MITRE ATT&CK linkage, an IOC table, and phased recommendations under a TLP label. Use it after you have collected logs, malware samples, network indicators, or third-party intel and need consistent structure before escalating to partners, insurers, or customers. It does not replace automated enrichment or legal attribution standards; it gives your coding agent a repeatable document shape so attribution reasoning stays auditable and actionable inside Claude Code, Cursor, or similar environments.

  • Campaign Attribution Analysis report scaffold with metadata, TLP classification, and analyst confidence fields
  • Executive summary plus numbered key findings with per-finding evidence and impact assessment
  • MITRE ATT&CK technique mapping embedded in detailed finding sections
  • Indicators of Compromise table with type, value, context, and confidence columns
  • Tiered recommendations split into immediate, short-term (1–2 weeks), and long-term strategic actions

Analyzing Campaign Attribution Evidence by the numbers

  • 363 all-time installs (skills.sh)
  • +24 installs in the week ending Aug 4, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
  • Ranked #569 of 2,203 Security skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
  • Security screen: MEDIUM risk (skills.sh audit)
  • Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/mukul975/anthropic-cybersecurity-skills --skill analyzing-campaign-attribution-evidence

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

Listed on Skillselion
Installs363
repo stars27.3k
Security audit2 / 3 scanners passed
Last updatedAugust 2, 2026
Repositorymukul975/anthropic-cybersecurity-skills

What it does

Produce structured cyber threat intelligence reports that tie campaign evidence to MITRE ATT&CK, IOCs, and confidence-rated recommendations after an incident or hunt.

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

Analyzing Campaign Attribution Evidence

Overview

Campaign attribution analysis involves systematically evaluating evidence to determine which threat actor or group is responsible for a cyber operation. This skill covers collecting and weighting attribution indicators using the Diamond Model and ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses), analyzing infrastructure overlaps, TTP consistency, malware code similarities, operational timing patterns, and language artifacts to build confidence-weighted attribution assessments.

When to Use

  • When investigating security incidents that require analyzing campaign attribution evidence
  • When building detection rules or threat hunting queries for this domain
  • When SOC analysts need structured procedures for this analysis type
  • When validating security monitoring coverage for related attack techniques

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.9+ with attackcti, stix2, networkx libraries
  • Access to threat intelligence platforms (MISP, OpenCTI)
  • Understanding of Diamond Model of Intrusion Analysis
  • Familiarity with MITRE ATT&CK threat group profiles
  • Knowledge of malware analysis and infrastructure tracking techniques

Key Concepts

Attribution Evidence Categories

1. Infrastructure Overlap: Shared C2 servers, domains, IP ranges, hosting providers 2. TTP Consistency: Matching ATT&CK techniques and sub-techniques across campaigns 3. Malware Code Similarity: Shared code bases, compilers, PDB paths, encryption routines 4. Operational Patterns: Timing (working hours, time zones), targeting patterns, operational tempo 5. Language Artifacts: Embedded strings, variable names, error messages in specific languages 6. Victimology: Target sector, geography, and organizational profile consistency

Confidence Levels

  • High Confidence: Multiple independent evidence categories converge on same actor
  • Moderate Confidence: Several evidence categories match, some ambiguity remains
  • Low Confidence: Limited evidence, possible false flags or shared tooling

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH)

Structured analytical method that evaluates evidence against multiple competing hypotheses. Each piece of evidence is scored as consistent, inconsistent, or neutral with respect to each hypothesis. The hypothesis with the least inconsistent evidence is favored.

Workflow

Step 1: Collect Attribution Evidence

from stix2 import MemoryStore, Filter
from collections import defaultdict

class AttributionAnalyzer:
    def __init__(self):
        self.evidence = []
        self.hypotheses = {}

    def add_evidence(self, category, description, value, confidence):
        self.evidence.append({
            "category": category,
            "description": description,
            "value": value,
            "confidence": confidence,
            "timestamp": None,
        })

    def add_hypothesis(self, actor_name, actor_id=""):
        self.hypotheses[actor_name] = {
            "actor_id": actor_id,
            "consistent_evidence": [],
            "inconsistent_evidence": [],
            "neutral_evidence": [],
            "score": 0,
        }

    def evaluate_evidence(self, evidence_idx, actor_name, assessment):
        """Assess evidence against a hypothesis: consistent/inconsistent/neutral."""
        if assessment == "consistent":
            self.hypotheses[actor_name]["consistent_evidence"].append(evidence_idx)
            self.hypotheses[actor_name]["score"] += self.evidence[evidence_idx]["confidence"]
        elif assessment == "inconsistent":
            self.hypotheses[actor_name]["inconsistent_evidence"].append(evidence_idx)
            self.hypotheses[actor_name]["score"] -= self.evidence[evidence_idx]["confidence"] * 2
        else:
            self.hypotheses[actor_name]["neutral_evidence"].append(evidence_idx)

    def rank_hypotheses(self):
        """Rank hypotheses by attribution score."""
        ranked = sorted(
            self.hypotheses.items(),
            key=lambda x: x[1]["score"],
            reverse=True,
        )
        return [
            {
                "actor": name,
                "score": data["score"],
                "consistent": len(data["consistent_evidence"]),
                "inconsistent": len(data["inconsistent_evidence"]),
                "confidence": self._score_to_confidence(data["score"]),
            }
            for name, data in ranked
        ]

    def _score_to_confidence(self, score):
        if score >= 80:
            return "HIGH"
        elif score >= 40:
            return "MODERATE"
        else:
            return "LOW"

Step 2: Infrastructure Overlap Analysis

def analyze_infrastructure_overlap(campaign_a_infra, campaign_b_infra):
    """Compare infrastructure between two campaigns for attribution."""
    overlap = {
        "shared_ips": set(campaign_a_infra.get("ips", [])).intersection(
            campaign_b_infra.get("ips", [])
        ),
        "shared_domains": set(campaign_a_infra.get("domains", [])).intersection(
            campaign_b_infra.get("domains", [])
        ),
        "shared_asns": set(campaign_a_infra.get("asns", [])).intersection(
            campaign_b_infra.get("asns", [])
        ),
        "shared_registrars": set(campaign_a_infra.get("registrars", [])).intersection(
            campaign_b_infra.get("registrars", [])
        ),
    }

    overlap_score = 0
    if overlap["shared_ips"]:
        overlap_score += 30
    if overlap["shared_domains"]:
        overlap_score += 25
    if overlap["shared_asns"]:
        overlap_score += 15
    if overlap["shared_registrars"]:
        overlap_score += 10

    return {
        "overlap": {k: list(v) for k, v in overlap.items()},
        "overlap_score": overlap_score,
        "assessment": "STRONG" if overlap_score >= 40 else "MODERATE" if overlap_score >= 20 else "WEAK",
    }

Step 3: TTP Comparison Across Campaigns

from attackcti import attack_client

def compare_campaign_ttps(campaign_techniques, known_actor_techniques):
    """Compare campaign TTPs against known threat actor profiles."""
    campaign_set = set(campaign_techniques)
    actor_set = set(known_actor_techniques)

    common = campaign_set.intersection(actor_set)
    unique_campaign = campaign_set - actor_set
    unique_actor = actor_set - campaign_set

    jaccard = len(common) / len(campaign_set.union(actor_set)) if campaign_set.union(actor_set) else 0

    return {
        "common_techniques": sorted(common),
        "common_count": len(common),
        "unique_to_campaign": sorted(unique_campaign),
        "unique_to_actor": sorted(unique_actor),
        "jaccard_similarity": round(jaccard, 3),
        "overlap_percentage": round(len(common) / len(campaign_set) * 100, 1) if campaign_set else 0,
    }

Step 4: Generate Attribution Report

def generate_attribution_report(analyzer):
    """Generate structured attribution assessment report."""
    rankings = analyzer.rank_hypotheses()

    report = {
        "assessment_date": "2026-02-23",
        "total_evidence_items": len(analyzer.evidence),
        "hypotheses_evaluated": len(analyzer.hypotheses),
        "rankings": rankings,
        "primary_attribution": rankings[0] if rankings else None,
        "evidence_summary": [
            {
                "index": i,
                "category": e["category"],
                "description": e["description"],
                "confidence": e["confidence"],
            }
            for i, e in enumerate(analyzer.evidence)
        ],
    }

    return report

Validation Criteria

  • Evidence collection covers all six attribution categories
  • ACH matrix properly evaluates evidence against competing hypotheses
  • Infrastructure overlap analysis identifies shared indicators
  • TTP comparison uses ATT&CK technique IDs for precision
  • Attribution confidence levels are properly justified
  • Report includes alternative hypotheses and false flag considerations

References

Related skills

FAQ

Is Analyzing Campaign Attribution Evidence safe to install?

skills.sh reports 2 of 3 security scanners passed. Review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing in production.

Securityauditappseccompliance

This week in AI coding

Five minutes, every Monday - the tools, releases and tactics for developers.

unsubscribe anytime.