Mmcp.market

analyzing-mft-for-deleted-file-recovery skill

by mukul975·mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills·34k stars·Apache-2.0

Analyze the NTFS Master File Table ($MFT) with MFTECmd, analyzeMFT,

A100/100content scan

Is the analyzing-mft-for-deleted-file-recovery skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 8 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the analyzing-mft-for-deleted-file-recovery 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-mft-for-deleted-file-recovery ~/.claude/skills/analyzing-mft-for-deleted-file-recovery
available in every project

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 MFT for Deleted File Recovery

Overview

The NTFS Master File Table ($MFT) is the central metadata repository for every file and directory on an NTFS volume. Each file is represented by at least one 1024-byte MFT record containing attributes such as $STANDARDINFORMATION (timestamps, permissions), $FILENAME (name, parent directory, timestamps), and $DATA (file content or cluster run pointers). When a file is deleted, its MFT record is marked as inactive (InUse flag cleared) but the metadata remains until the entry is reallocated by a new file. This persistence makes MFT analysis a primary technique for recovering deleted file evidence, reconstructing file system timelines, and detecting anti-forensic activity such as timestomping.

When to Use

  • When investigating security incidents that require analyzing mft for deleted file recovery
  • 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

  • Forensic disk image (E01, raw/dd, VMDK, or VHDX format)
  • MFTECmd (Eric Zimmerman) or analyzeMFT (Python-based)
  • FTK Imager, Arsenal Image Mounter, or similar for image mounting
  • Timeline Explorer or Excel for CSV analysis
  • Python 3.8+ for custom analysis scripts
  • Understanding of NTFS file system internals

MFT Structure and Record Layout

MFT Record Header

Each MFT record begins with the signature "FILE" (0x46494C45) and contains:

Key MFT Attributes

Deleted File Recovery Techniques

Technique 1: MFT Record Analysis with MFTECmd

# Extract $MFT from forensic image using KAPE or FTK Imager
# Parse the $MFT with MFTECmd
MFTECmd.exe -f "C:\Evidence\$MFT" --csv C:\Output --csvf mft_full.csv

# Filter for deleted files (InUse = FALSE) in Timeline Explorer
# Look for entries where InUse column is False

Identifying Deleted Files in CSV Output:

  • InUse = False indicates a deleted or reallocated record
  • ParentPath shows original file location before deletion
  • FileSize shows the original size (may still be recoverable)
  • Timestamps in $STANDARDINFORMATION and $FILENAME attributes persist

Technique 2: USN Journal ($UsnJrnl:$J) Analysis

The USN Journal records all changes to files on an NTFS volume, including creation, deletion, rename, and data modification events.

# Parse USN Journal with MFTECmd
MFTECmd.exe -f "C:\Evidence\$J" --csv C:\Output --csvf usn_journal.csv

# Key USN reason codes for deletion evidence:
# USN_REASON_FILE_DELETE     = 0x00000200
# USN_REASON_CLOSE           = 0x80000000
# USN_REASON_RENAME_OLD_NAME = 0x00001000
# USN_REASON_RENAME_NEW_NAME = 0x00002000

Technique 3: $LogFile Transaction Analysis

The $LogFile stores NTFS transaction records that can reveal file operations even after the USN Journal has been cycled.

# Parse $LogFile with LogFileParser
LogFileParser.exe -l "C:\Evidence\$LogFile" -o C:\Output

# Look for REDO and UNDO operations indicating file deletion:
# - DeallocateFileRecordSegment
# - DeleteAttribute
# - UpdateResidentValue (clearing InUse flag)

Technique 4: MFT Slack Space Analysis

MFT slack space exists between the end of the used portion of an MFT record and the end of the allocated 1024 bytes. This area may contain remnants of previous file records.

import struct

def parse_mft_slack(mft_path: str, output_path: str):
    """Extract and analyze MFT slack space for deleted file remnants."""
    with open(mft_path, "rb") as f:
        record_size = 1024
        record_num = 0
        slack_findings = []

        while True:
            record = f.read(record_size)
            if len(record) < record_size:
                break

            # Verify FILE signature
            if record[:4] != b"FILE":
                record_num += 1
                continue

            # Get used size from offset 0x18
            used_size = struct.unpack("<I", record[0x18:0x1C])[0]

            if used_size < record_size:
                slack = record[used_size:]
                # Check if slack contains readable strings or attribute headers
                if any(c > 0x20 and c < 0x7F for c in slack[:50]):
                    slack_findings.append({
                        "record": record_num,
                        "used_size": used_size,
                        "slack_size": record_size - used_size,
                        "slack_preview": slack[:100].hex()
                    })

            record_num += 1

    return slack_findings

Correlation with Supporting Artifacts

Cross-Reference MFT with $Recycle.Bin

# Parse Recycle Bin with RBCmd
RBCmd.exe -d "C:\Evidence\$Recycle.Bin" --csv C:\Output --csvf recycle_bin.csv

# Correlate: $I files contain original path and deletion timestamp
# Match MFT entry numbers from $R files back to original MFT records

Cross-Reference MFT with Volume Shadow Copies

# List volume shadow copies
vssadmin list shadows

# Mount shadow copies and extract $MFT from each
# Compare MFT records across shadow copies to track file changes over time

Forensic Value

  • Deleted file metadata recovery: Original filename, path, size, and timestamps
  • Timeline reconstruction: File creation, modification, access, and deletion events
  • Timestomping detection: Comparing $SI vs $FN timestamps
  • Data carving guidance: MFT cluster runs point to file content on disk
  • Anti-forensic detection: Identifying wiped or manipulated MFT records

References

  • NTFS MFT Advanced Forensic Analysis: https://www.deaddisk.com/posts/ntfs-mft-advanced-forensic-analysis-guide/
  • MFT Slack Space Forensic Value: https://www.sygnia.co/blog/the-forensic-value-of-mft-slack-space/
  • MFTECmd Documentation: https://ericzimmerman.github.io/
  • SANS FOR500: Windows Forensic Analysis

Example Output

$ MFTECmd.exe -f "C:\Evidence\$MFT" --csv /analysis/mft_output

MFTECmd v1.2.2 - MFT Parser
==============================
Input: C:\Evidence\$MFT (Size: 384 MB)
Total MFT Entries: 395,264

Parsing MFT entries... Done (12.4 seconds)

--- Deleted File Recovery Summary ---
Total Entries:          395,264
Active Files:           245,832
Deleted Files:          149,432
  Recoverable:          87,234 (resident data or clusters not reallocated)
  Partially Recoverable: 31,456 (some clusters overwritten)
  Unrecoverable:        30,742 (all clusters reallocated)

--- Recently Deleted Files (Incident Window: 2024-01-15 to 2024-01-18) ---
MFT Entry | Filename                          | Path                               | Size      | Deleted (UTC)         | Recoverable
----------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------------|------------
148923    | exfil_tool.exe                    | C:\ProgramData\Updates\            | 1,258,496 | 2024-01-17 02:45:12   | YES
148924    | exfil_tool.log                    | C:\ProgramData\Updates\            | 45,312    | 2024-01-17 02:45:14   | YES
149001    | passwords.txt                     |

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.

All agent skills → · MCP servers