analyzing-docker-container-forensics skill
Investigate compromised Docker containers by analyzing images, layers,
Is the analyzing-docker-container-forensics skill safe?
A critical finding: do not install it without reading the flagged line. We read 4 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.
- high
SKILL.md:76Reads credential files (SSH keys, cloud or package-manager tokens) that a skill has no normal reason to touch.
docker cp $CONTAINER_ID:/etc/passwd /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_passwd - high
scripts/agent.py:121Reads credential files (SSH keys, cloud or package-manager tokens) that a skill has no normal reason to touch.
suspicious_changes = ["/etc/passwd", "/etc/shadow", "/etc/crontab", - medium
SKILL.md:336Edits shell startup files, cron or launch agents, so something runs again after the skill is done.
/etc/crontab - Modified (persistence cron entry added)
Install the analyzing-docker-container-forensics 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. Read the findings above first.
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-docker-container-forensics ~/.claude/skills/analyzing-docker-container-forensics
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 Docker Container Forensics
When to Use
- When investigating a compromised Docker container or container host
- For analyzing malicious Docker images pulled from registries
- During incident response involving containerized application breaches
- When examining container escape attempts or privilege escalation
- For auditing container configurations and identifying misconfigurations
Prerequisites
- Docker CLI access on the forensic workstation
- Access to the Docker host file system (forensic image or live)
- Understanding of Docker layered file system (overlay2, aufs)
- dive, docker-explorer, or container-diff for image analysis
- Knowledge of Docker daemon configuration and socket security
- Trivy or Grype for vulnerability scanning of container images
Workflow
Step 1: Preserve Container State and Evidence
# List all containers (including stopped)
docker ps -a --no-trunc > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_list.txt
# Inspect the compromised container
CONTAINER_ID="abc123def456"
docker inspect $CONTAINER_ID > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_inspect.json
# Export container filesystem as tarball (preserves current state)
docker export $CONTAINER_ID > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_export.tar
# Create an image from the container's current state
docker commit $CONTAINER_ID forensic-evidence:case-2024-001
docker save forensic-evidence:case-2024-001 > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_image.tar
# Capture container logs
docker logs $CONTAINER_ID --timestamps > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_logs.txt 2>&1
# Capture running processes (if container is still running)
docker top $CONTAINER_ID > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_processes.txt
# Capture network connections
docker exec $CONTAINER_ID netstat -tlnp 2>/dev/null > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_network.txt
# Copy specific files from the container
docker cp $CONTAINER_ID:/var/log/ /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_var_log/
docker cp $CONTAINER_ID:/tmp/ /cases/case-2024-001/docker/containeStep 2: Analyze Container Image Layers
# Install dive for image layer analysis
wget https://github.com/wagoodman/dive/releases/latest/download/dive_linux_amd64.deb
sudo dpkg -i dive_linux_amd64.deb
# Analyze image layers interactively
dive forensic-evidence:case-2024-001
# Non-interactive layer analysis
dive forensic-evidence:case-2024-001 --ci --json /cases/case-2024-001/docker/dive_analysis.json
# Extract and examine individual layers
mkdir -p /cases/case-2024-001/docker/layers/
tar -xf /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_image.tar -C /cases/case-2024-001/docker/layers/
# List the image manifest and layer order
cat /cases/case-2024-001/docker/layers/manifest.json | python3 -m json.tool
# Examine each layer for changes
for layer in /cases/case-2024-001/docker/layers/*/layer.tar; do
echo "=== Layer: $(dirname $layer | xargs basename) ==="
tar -tf "$layer" | head -20
echo "..."
done
# Use container-diff to compare with original base image
# Install container-diff
curl -LO https://storage.googleapis.com/container-diff/latest/container-diff-linux-amd64
chmod +x container-diff-linux-amd64
# Compare committed image with original
./container-diff-linux-amd64 diff daemon://nginx:latest daemon://forensic-evStep 3: Examine Docker Host Artifacts
# Docker data directory (default: /var/lib/docker/)
DOCKER_ROOT="/mnt/evidence/var/lib/docker"
# Examine overlay2 filesystem layers
ls -la $DOCKER_ROOT/overlay2/
# Find the container's merged filesystem
CONTAINER_HASH=$(docker inspect $CONTAINER_ID --format '{{.GraphDriver.Data.MergedDir}}' 2>/dev/null)
# Or manually from forensic image:
# Look in /var/lib/docker/containers/<container_id>/config.v2.json
# Analyze container configuration files
cat $DOCKER_ROOT/containers/$CONTAINER_ID/config.v2.json | python3 -m json.tool \
> /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_config.json
# Check Docker daemon configuration
cat /mnt/evidence/etc/docker/daemon.json 2>/dev/null > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/daemon_config.json
# Examine Docker events log
cat $DOCKER_ROOT/containers/$CONTAINER_ID/*.log > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_json_logs.txt
# Check for volume mounts (potential host filesystem access)
python3 << 'PYEOF'
import json
with open('/cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_inspect.json') as f:
data = json.load(f)
inspect = data[0] if isinstance(data, list) else data
print("=== CONTAINER SECURITY ANALYSIS ===\n")
# Check mounts
print("Volume Mounts:")
for mount inStep 4: Analyze Container File System Changes
# Compare container filesystem to original image
docker diff $CONTAINER_ID > /cases/case-2024-001/docker/filesystem_changes.txt
# A = Added, C = Changed, D = Deleted
# Analyze changes
python3 << 'PYEOF'
added = []
changed = []
deleted = []
with open('/cases/case-2024-001/docker/filesystem_changes.txt') as f:
for line in f:
line = line.strip()
if line.startswith('A '):
added.append(line[2:])
elif line.startswith('C '):
changed.append(line[2:])
elif line.startswith('D '):
deleted.append(line[2:])
print(f"Files Added: {len(added)}")
print(f"Files Changed: {len(changed)}")
print(f"Files Deleted: {len(deleted)}")
# Flag suspicious additions
suspicious = [f for f in added if any(s in f for s in
['/tmp/', '/dev/shm/', '/root/', '.sh', '.py', '.elf', 'reverse', 'shell', 'backdoor'])]
if suspicious:
print(f"\nSuspicious Added Files:")
for f in suspicious:
print(f" {f}")
# Flag suspicious changes
sus_changed = [f for f in changed if any(s in f for s in
['/etc/passwd', '/etc/shadow', '/etc/crontab', '/etc/ssh', '.bashrc'])]
if sus_changed:
print(f"\nSuspicious Changed Files:")
for f iStep 5: Scan for Vulnerabilities and Generate Report
# Scan the image for known vulnerabilities
trivy image forensic-evidence:case-2024-001 \
--format json \
--output /cases/case-2024-001/docker/vulnerability_scan.json
# Scan the exported filesystem
trivy fs /cases/case-2024-001/docker/container_fs/ \
--format table \
--output /cases/case-2024-001/docker/fs_vulnerabilities.txt
# Check for secrets in the image
trivy image forensic-evidence:case-2024-001 \
--scanners secret \
--format json \
--output /cases/case-2024-001/docker/secrets_scan.jsonKey Concepts
Tools & Systems
Common Scenarios
Scenario 1: Web Application Container Compromise Export the container filesystem, identify webshells in web root, analyze access logs for exploitation attempts, check for added files and modified configurations, examine network connections for C2 communication, review container capabilities for escalation paths.
Scenario 2: Supply Chain Attack via Malicious Image Analyze image layers with dive to identify which layer added malicious content, compare with the official base image using container-diff, check image history for suspicious RUN commands, scan for embedded backdoors and cryptocurrency miners, trace the image pull from registry logs.
Scenario 3: Container Escape Investigation Check if container ran privileged or with dangerous capabilities, examine host filesystem mount points for unauthorized access, review Docker socket mount enabling Docker-in-Docker abuse, analyze host system logs for container escape indicators, check for kernel exploit artifacts.
Scenario 4: Cryptojacking in Container Environment Identify high-CPU containers, export and analyze the container image for mining binaries, check for unauthorized images in the registry, review container creation events for rogue deployments, examine network connections for mining pool communications.
Output Format
Docker Container Forensics Summary:
Container: abc123def456 (nginx-app)
Image: company/web-app:v2.1
Status: Running (started 2024-01-10 09:00 UTC)
Host: docker-host-01.corp.local
Security Configuration:
Privileged: No
Capabilities Added: NET_ADMIN (WARNING)
Volume Mounts: /var/log -> /host-logs (RW)
Network Mode: bridge
User: root (WARNING)
Filesystem Changes:
Added: 23 files (5 suspicious)
Changed: 12 files (2 suspicious)
Deleted: 0 files
Suspicious Findings:
/tmp/reverse.sh - Reverse shell script (Added)
/var/www/html/.hidden/shell.php - PHP webshell (Added)
/etc/crontab - Modified (persistence cron entry added)
/root/.ssh/authorized_keys - Modified (unauthorized key added)
Vulnerability Scan:
Critical: 3 (CVE-2024-xxxx in base image)
High: 12
Medium: 34
Evidence: /cases/case-2024-001/docker/More 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.