analyzing-dns-logs-for-exfiltration skill
'Analyzes DNS query logs to detect data exfiltration via DNS tunneling,
Is the analyzing-dns-logs-for-exfiltration skill safe?
Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 4 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.
No findings.
Install the analyzing-dns-logs-for-exfiltration skill
A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills cp -r /tmp/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills/skills/analyzing-dns-logs-for-exfiltration ~/.claude/skills/analyzing-dns-logs-for-exfiltration
In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub
The instructions your agent would load
SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub
Analyzing DNS Logs for Exfiltration
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- SOC teams suspect data exfiltration through DNS tunneling to bypass firewall/proxy controls
- Threat intelligence indicates adversaries using DNS-based C2 channels (e.g., Cobalt Strike DNS beacon)
- UEBA detects anomalous DNS query volumes from specific hosts
- Malware analysis reveals DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) or DNS tunneling capabilities
Do not use for standard DNS troubleshooting or availability monitoring — this skill focuses on security-relevant DNS abuse detection.
Prerequisites
- DNS query logging enabled (Windows DNS Server, Bind, Infoblox, or Cisco Umbrella)
- DNS logs ingested into SIEM (Splunk with Stream:DNS, dns sourcetype, or Zeek DNS logs)
- Passive DNS data for historical domain resolution analysis
- Baseline of normal DNS behavior (query volume, domain distribution, TXT record frequency)
- Python with math and collections libraries for entropy calculation
Workflow
Step 1: Detect DNS Tunneling via Subdomain Length Analysis
DNS tunneling encodes data in subdomain labels, creating unusually long queries:
index=dns sourcetype="stream:dns" query_type IN ("A", "AAAA", "TXT", "CNAME", "MX")
| eval domain_parts = split(query, ".")
| eval subdomain = mvindex(domain_parts, 0, mvcount(domain_parts)-3)
| eval subdomain_str = mvjoin(subdomain, ".")
| eval subdomain_len = len(subdomain_str)
| eval tld = mvindex(domain_parts, -1)
| eval registered_domain = mvindex(domain_parts, -2).".".tld
| where subdomain_len > 50
| stats count AS queries, dc(query) AS unique_queries,
avg(subdomain_len) AS avg_subdomain_len,
max(subdomain_len) AS max_subdomain_len,
values(src_ip) AS sources
by registered_domain
| where queries > 20
| sort - avg_subdomain_len
| table registered_domain, queries, unique_queries, avg_subdomain_len, max_subdomain_len, sourcesStep 2: Detect High-Entropy Domain Queries (DGA Detection)
Domain Generation Algorithms produce random-looking domains:
index=dns sourcetype="stream:dns"
| eval domain_parts = split(query, ".")
| eval sld = mvindex(domain_parts, -2)
| eval sld_len = len(sld)
| eval char_count = sld_len
| eval vowels = len(replace(sld, "[^aeiou]", ""))
| eval consonants = len(replace(sld, "[^bcdfghjklmnpqrstvwxyz]", ""))
| eval digits = len(replace(sld, "[^0-9]", ""))
| eval vowel_ratio = if(char_count > 0, vowels / char_count, 0)
| eval digit_ratio = if(char_count > 0, digits / char_count, 0)
| where sld_len > 12 AND (vowel_ratio < 0.2 OR digit_ratio > 0.3)
| stats count AS queries, dc(query) AS unique_domains, values(src_ip) AS sources
by query
| where unique_domains > 10
| sort - queriesPython-based Shannon Entropy Calculation for DNS queries:
import math
from collections import Counter
def shannon_entropy(text):
"""Calculate Shannon entropy of a string"""
if not text:
return 0
counter = Counter(text.lower())
length = len(text)
entropy = -sum(
(count / length) * math.log2(count / length)
for count in counter.values()
)
return round(entropy, 4)
# Test with examples
normal_domain = "google" # Low entropy
dga_domain = "x8kj2m9p4qw7n" # High entropy
tunnel_subdomain = "aGVsbG8gd29ybGQ.evil.com" # Base64 encoded data
print(f"Normal: {shannon_entropy(normal_domain)}") # ~2.25
print(f"DGA: {shannon_entropy(dga_domain)}") # ~3.70
print(f"Tunnel: {shannon_entropy(tunnel_subdomain)}") # ~3.50
# Threshold: entropy > 3.5 for subdomain = likely tunneling/DGASplunk implementation of entropy scoring:
index=dns sourcetype="stream:dns"
| eval domain_parts = split(query, ".")
| eval check_string = mvindex(domain_parts, 0)
| eval check_len = len(check_string)
| where check_len > 8
| eval chars = split(check_string, "")
| stats count AS total_chars, dc(chars) AS unique_chars by query, src_ip, check_string, check_len
| eval entropy_estimate = log(unique_chars, 2) * (unique_chars / check_len)
| where entropy_estimate > 3.5
| stats count AS high_entropy_queries, dc(query) AS unique_queries by src_ip
| where high_entropy_queries > 50
| sort - high_entropy_queriesStep 3: Detect Anomalous DNS Query Volume
Identify hosts generating abnormal DNS traffic:
index=dns sourcetype="stream:dns" earliest=-24h
| bin _time span=1h
| stats count AS queries, dc(query) AS unique_domains by src_ip, _time
| eventstats avg(queries) AS avg_queries, stdev(queries) AS stdev_queries by src_ip
| eval z_score = (queries - avg_queries) / stdev_queries
| where z_score > 3 OR queries > 5000
| sort - z_score
| table _time, src_ip, queries, unique_domains, avg_queries, z_scoreDetect TXT record abuse (common tunneling method):
index=dns sourcetype="stream:dns" query_type="TXT"
| stats count AS txt_queries, dc(query) AS unique_txt_domains,
values(query) AS domains by src_ip
| where txt_queries > 100
| eval suspicion = case(
txt_queries > 1000, "CRITICAL — Likely DNS tunneling",
txt_queries > 500, "HIGH — Possible DNS tunneling",
txt_queries > 100, "MEDIUM — Unusual TXT volume"
)
| sort - txt_queries
| table src_ip, txt_queries, unique_txt_domains, suspicionStep 4: Detect Known DNS Tunneling Tools
Search for signatures of common DNS tunneling tools:
index=dns sourcetype="stream:dns"
| eval query_lower = lower(query)
| where (
match(query_lower, "\.dnscat\.") OR
match(query_lower, "\.dns2tcp\.") OR
match(query_lower, "\.iodine\.") OR
match(query_lower, "\.dnscapy\.") OR
match(query_lower, "\.cobalt.*\.beacon") OR
query_type="NULL" OR
(query_type="TXT" AND len(query) > 100)
)
| stats count by src_ip, query, query_type
| sort - countDetect DNS over HTTPS (DoH) bypassing local DNS:
index=proxy OR index=firewall
dest IN ("1.1.1.1", "1.0.0.1", "8.8.8.8", "8.8.4.4",
"9.9.9.9", "149.112.112.112", "208.67.222.222")
dest_port=443
| stats sum(bytes_out) AS total_bytes, count AS connections by src_ip, dest
| where connections > 100 OR total_bytes > 10485760
| eval alert = "Possible DoH bypass — DNS queries sent over HTTPS to public resolver"
| sort - total_bytesStep 5: Correlate DNS Findings with Endpoint Data
Cross-reference suspicious DNS with process data:
index=dns src_ip="192.168.1.105" query="*.evil-tunnel.com" earliest=-24h
| stats count AS dns_queries, earliest(_time) AS first_query, latest(_time) AS last_query
by src_ip, query
| join src_ip [
search index=sysmon EventCode=3 DestinationPort=53 Computer="WORKSTATION-042"
| stats count AS connections, values(Image) AS processes by SourceIp
| rename SourceIp AS src_ip
]
| table src_ip, query, dns_queries, first_query, last_query, processesStep 6: Calculate Data Exfiltration Volume Estimate
Estimate data volume encoded in DNS queries:
index=dns src_ip="192.168.1.105" query="*.evil-tunnel.com" earliest=-24h
| eval domain_parts = split(query, ".")
| eval encoded_data = mvindex(domain_parts, 0)
| eval encoded_bytes = len(encoded_data)
| eval decoded_bytes = encoded_bytes * 0.75 -- Base64 decoding factor
| stats sum(decoded_bytes) AS total_bytes_estimated, count AS total_queries,
earliest(_time) AS first_seen, latest(_time) AS last_seen
| eval estimated_kb = round(total_bytes_estimated / 1024, 1)
| eval estimated_mb = round(total_bytes_estimated / 1048576, 2)
| eval duration_hours = round((last_seen - first_seen) / 3600, 1)
| eval rate_kbps = round(estimated_kb / (duration_hours * 3600) * 8, 2)
| table total_queries, estimated_mb, duration_hours, rate_kbps, first_seen, last_seenKey Concepts
Tools & Systems
- Splunk Stream: Network traffic capture add-on providing parsed DNS query data for SIEM analysis
- Zeek (Bro): Network security monitor generating detailed DNS transaction logs for analysis
- Cisco Umbrella (OpenDNS): Cloud DNS security platform blocking malicious domains and logging query data
- Infoblox DNS Firewall: DNS-layer security providing RPZ-based blocking and detailed query logging
- Farsight DNSDB: Passive DNS database for historical domain resolution lookups and infrastructure mapping
Common Scenarios
- Cobalt Strike DNS Beacon: Detect periodic TXT queries with encoded payloads to C2 domain
- Data Exfiltration: Large volumes of unique subdomain queries encoding stolen data in Base64/hex
- DGA Malware: Detect DNS queries to algorithmically generated domains (high entropy, no web content)
- DNS-over-HTTPS Bypass: Employee using DoH to bypass corporate DNS filtering and monitoring
- Slow Drip Exfiltration: Low-volume DNS tunneling staying below threshold alerts (requires baseline comparison)
Output Format
DNS EXFILTRATION ANALYSIS — WORKSTATION-042
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Period: 2024-03-14 to 2024-03-15
Source: 192.168.1.105 (WORKSTATION-042, Finance Dept)
Findings:
[CRITICAL] DNS tunneling detected to evil-tunnel[.]com
Query Volume: 12,847 queries in 18 hours
Avg Subdomain Len: 63 characters (normal: <20)
Avg Entropy: 3.82 (threshold: 3.5)
Query Types: TXT (89%), A (11%)
Estimated Data: ~4.7 MB exfiltrated via DNS
Rate: 0.58 kbps (slow drip pattern)
[HIGH] DGA-like domains resolved
Unique DGA Domains: 247 domains resolved
Pattern: 15-char random alphanumeric.xyz TLD
Entropy Range: 3.6 - 4.1
Process Attribution:
Process: svchost_update.exe (masquerading — not legitimate svchost)
PID: 4892
Parent: explorer.exe
Hash: SHA256: a1b2c3d4... (VT: 34/72 malicious — Cobalt Strike beacon)
Containment:
[DONE] Host isolated via EDR
[DONE] Domain evil-tunnel[.]com added to DNS sinkhole
[DONE] Incident IR-2024-0448 createdMore skills from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
- Aabusing-dpapi-for-credential-accessExtract and decrypt Windows DPAPI-protected secrets (Credential Manager, browser logins/cookies, Wi-Fi credentials, KeePass keys) online or offline using SharpDPAPI, SharpChrome, Mimikatz, or Impacket's dpapi.py, including domain-wide decryption via the DPAPI backup key. Use during authorized red-team credential-access engagements after gaining a foothold or when triaging DPAPI blobs pulled from a host.
- Aabusing-shadow-credentials-for-privescTake over Active Directory accounts by writing attacker-controlled public keys to msDS-KeyCredentialLink (Shadow Credentials) with pyWhisker, Whisker, or Certipy, then authenticate via PKINIT to recover the target's NT hash without a password reset. Use when BloodHound shows GenericWrite/GenericAll/AddKeyCredentialLink over a target, as a stealthier alternative to ForceChangePassword, during authorized red-team engagements.
- Aachieving-cmmc-level-2-compliancePrepare a defense-contractor environment for CMMC Level 2 certification: scope CUI and FCI, implement the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 security requirements across 14 families, compute the SPRS score with the DoD Assessment Methodology, manage a compliant POA&M, and ready the organization for a C3PAO assessment. Use when an organization handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract, when a contract carries DFARS clause 252.204-7012/7019/7020/7021, when preparing for or responding to a CMMC assessment, when computing or improving an SPRS score, when building a System Security Plan or POA&M for 800-171, or when scoping which systems are in the CUI boundary. Keywords: CMMC, CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, SP 800-171 Rev 2, CUI, FCI, SPRS, DFARS 7012, C3PAO, POA&M, System Security Plan, DoD Assessment Methodology, 110 controls, defense industrial base, DIB, FedRAMP equivalency.
- Aacquiring-disk-image-with-dd-and-dcflddCreate forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images with dd or dcfldd on a Linux forensic workstation, preserving evidence integrity through hash verification (MD5/SHA) during acquisition. Use when imaging a suspect drive, USB device, or memory card for investigation, preserving volatile disk evidence during incident response, or producing a verified copy for legal or law-enforcement proceedings before any destructive analysis.
- Aanalyzing-active-directory-acl-abuseDetect dangerous ACL misconfigurations in Active Directory using ldap3
- Aanalyzing-android-malware-with-apktoolPerform static analysis of Android APK malware using apktool for resource decompilation, jadx for Java source recovery, and androguard for manifest inspection, dangerous permission-combination detection, and identification of obfuscated code, dynamic code loading, and reflection-based API calls. Use to statically triage a suspicious APK without executing it or to build mobile malware detection rules.
- Danalyzing-api-gateway-access-logs'Parses API Gateway access logs (AWS API Gateway, Kong, Nginx) to detect
- Aanalyzing-apt-group-with-mitre-navigatorQuery ATT&CK data with attackcti, mitreattack-python, and stix2, then build MITRE ATT&CK Navigator layers and multi-layer heatmap overlays mapping one or more APT groups' TTPs for detection-gap analysis. Use to compare threat-actor technique coverage, find gaps in detection engineering, or produce Navigator visualizations for threat-intel reporting.
- Aanalyzing-azure-activity-logs-for-threats'Queries Azure Monitor activity logs and sign-in logs via azure-monitor-query
- Aanalyzing-bootkit-and-rootkit-samples'Analyzes bootkit and advanced rootkit malware infecting the Master
- Aanalyzing-browser-forensics-with-hindsightParse Chromium-based browser databases with Hindsight to extract and correlate browsing history, downloads, cookies, cached content, autofill data, saved passwords, and extensions from Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, and Vivaldi into a unified timeline (XLSX, JSON, or SQLite output). Use during incident response, insider-threat investigations, or criminal cases when you need to reconstruct a user's web activity from a browser profile.
- Aanalyzing-campaign-attribution-evidenceSystematically evaluate cyber-campaign evidence to attribute an operation to a threat actor, using the Diamond Model and Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) to weigh infrastructure overlaps, TTP consistency, malware code similarity, and timing/language artifacts into confidence-weighted attribution assessments. Use when an incident investigation needs a defensible attribution confidence level.