building-detection-rule-with-splunk-spl skill
Build effective detection rules using Splunk Search Processing Language
Is the building-detection-rule-with-splunk-spl skill safe?
Serious findings: read the flagged lines first. We read 8 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.
- high
SKILL.md:139Downloads a script and runs it in one step, so what runs is whatever that server sends that day. Common for installers, and still worth a look at the address.
| where match(ScriptBlockText, "(?i)(encodedcommand|invoke-expression|iex|downloadstring|frombase64string|net\.webclient|invoke-webrequest|bitstransfer|invoke-mimikatz|invoke-shellcode)") - high
scripts/process.py:268Downloads a script and runs it in one step, so what runs is whatever that server sends that day. Common for installers, and still worth a look at the address.
'| where match(ScriptBlockText, "(?i)(encodedcommand|invoke-expression|iex|downloadstring|frombase64string|net\\.webclient|invoke-mimikatz)") '
Install the building-detection-rule-with-splunk-spl 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/building-detection-rule-with-splunk-spl ~/.claude/skills/building-detection-rule-with-splunk-spl
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
Building Detection Rules with Splunk SPL
Overview
Splunk Search Processing Language (SPL) is the primary query language used in Splunk Enterprise Security for building correlation searches that detect suspicious events and patterns. A well-crafted detection rule aggregates, correlates, and enriches security events to generate actionable notable events for SOC analysts. Enterprise SIEMs on average cover only 21% of MITRE ATT&CK techniques, making skilled SPL rule writing essential for closing detection gaps.
When to Use
- When deploying or configuring building detection rule with splunk spl capabilities in your environment
- When establishing security controls aligned to compliance requirements
- When building or improving security architecture for this domain
- When conducting security assessments that require this implementation
Prerequisites
- Splunk Enterprise Security (ES) deployed and configured
- Access to Splunk Search & Reporting app with appropriate roles
- Understanding of Common Information Model (CIM) data models
- Familiarity with MITRE ATT&CK framework techniques
- Knowledge of the organization's log sources and data flows
Core SPL Detection Rule Patterns
1. Threshold-Based Detection
Detects events exceeding a defined count within a time window.
index=wineventlog sourcetype=WinEventLog:Security EventCode=4625
| stats count as failed_logins dc(TargetUserName) as unique_users by src_ip
| where failed_logins > 10 AND unique_users > 3
| eval severity="high"
| eval description="Brute force attack detected from ".src_ip." with ".failed_logins." failed logins across ".unique_users." accounts"2. Sequence-Based Detection (Failed Login Followed by Success)
Correlates a sequence of events indicating a successful brute force attack.
index=wineventlog sourcetype=WinEventLog:Security (EventCode=4625 OR EventCode=4624)
| eval login_status=case(EventCode=4625, "failure", EventCode=4624, "success")
| stats count(eval(login_status="failure")) as failures count(eval(login_status="success")) as successes latest(_time) as last_event by src_ip, TargetUserName
| where failures > 5 AND successes > 0
| eval description="Account ".TargetUserName." compromised via brute force from ".src_ip
| eval urgency="critical"3. Anomaly Detection with Baseline Comparison
Compares current activity against a baseline period to detect spikes.
index=proxy sourcetype=squid
| bin _time span=1h
| stats count as current_count by src_ip, _time
| join src_ip type=left [
search index=proxy sourcetype=squid earliest=-7d@d latest=-1d@d
| stats avg(count) as avg_count stdev(count) as stdev_count by src_ip
]
| eval threshold=avg_count + (3 * stdev_count)
| where current_count > threshold
| eval deviation=round((current_count - avg_count) / stdev_count, 2)
| eval description="Anomalous web traffic from ".src_ip." - ".deviation." standard deviations above baseline"4. Lateral Movement Detection
Identifies potential lateral movement using Windows logon events.
index=wineventlog sourcetype=WinEventLog:Security EventCode=4624 Logon_Type=3
| where NOT match(TargetUserName, ".*\$$")
| stats dc(dest) as unique_hosts values(dest) as hosts by src_ip, TargetUserName
| where unique_hosts > 5
| eval severity=case(unique_hosts > 20, "critical", unique_hosts > 10, "high", true(), "medium")
| eval description=TargetUserName." accessed ".unique_hosts." unique hosts from ".src_ip." via network logon"5. Data Exfiltration Detection
Monitors for large outbound data transfers.
index=firewall sourcetype=pan:traffic action=allowed direction=outbound
| stats sum(bytes_out) as total_bytes_out dc(dest_ip) as unique_destinations by src_ip, user
| eval total_mb=round(total_bytes_out/1048576, 2)
| where total_mb > 500 OR unique_destinations > 50
| lookup asset_lookup ip as src_ip OUTPUT asset_category, asset_owner
| eval severity=case(total_mb > 2000, "critical", total_mb > 1000, "high", true(), "medium")
| eval description=user." transferred ".total_mb."MB to ".unique_destinations." unique destinations"6. PowerShell Suspicious Execution Detection
Detects encoded or obfuscated PowerShell commands.
index=wineventlog sourcetype=WinEventLog:Security EventCode=4104
| where match(ScriptBlockText, "(?i)(encodedcommand|invoke-expression|iex|downloadstring|frombase64string|net\.webclient|invoke-webrequest|bitstransfer|invoke-mimikatz|invoke-shellcode)")
| eval decoded_length=len(ScriptBlockText)
| stats count values(ScriptBlockText) as commands by Computer, UserName
| where count > 0
| eval severity="high"
| eval mitre_technique="T1059.001"
| eval description="Suspicious PowerShell execution on ".Computer." by ".UserNameBuilding Correlation Searches in Splunk ES
Step-by-Step Process
- Define the Use Case: Map to MITRE ATT&CK technique and define what behavior to detect
- Identify Data Sources: Determine which indexes and sourcetypes contain relevant events
- Write the Base Search: Build SPL that extracts relevant events
- Add Aggregation: Use stats, eventstats, or streamstats to summarize
- Apply Thresholds: Set conditions with where clause that distinguish normal from anomalous
- Enrich Context: Add lookups for asset information, identity data, and threat intelligence
- Configure Notable Event: Set severity, urgency, and description fields
- Schedule and Test: Run against historical data and validate detection accuracy
Correlation Search Configuration Template
| tstats summariesonly=true count from datamodel=Authentication
where Authentication.action=failure
by Authentication.src, Authentication.user, _time span=5m
| rename "Authentication.*" as *
| stats count as total_failures dc(user) as unique_users values(user) as targeted_users by src
| where total_failures > 20 AND unique_users > 5
| lookup dnslookup clientip as src OUTPUT clienthost as src_dns
| lookup asset_lookup ip as src OUTPUT priority as asset_priority, category as asset_category
| eval urgency=case(asset_priority=="critical", "critical", asset_priority=="high", "high", true(), "medium")
| eval rule_name="Brute Force Against Multiple Accounts"
| eval rule_description="Multiple authentication failures from ".src." targeting ".unique_users." unique accounts"
| eval mitre_attack="T1110.001 - Password Guessing"Enrichment Best Practices
| lookup identity_lookup identity as user OUTPUT department, manager, risk_score as user_risk
| lookup asset_lookup ip as src_ip OUTPUT asset_name, asset_category, asset_priority, asset_owner
| lookup threatintel_lookup ip as src_ip OUTPUT threat_type, threat_confidence, threat_source
| eval context=case(
isnotnull(threat_type), "Known threat: ".threat_type,
user_risk > 80, "High-risk user: risk score ".user_risk,
asset_priority=="critical", "Critical asset: ".asset_name,
true(), "Standard context"
)Performance Optimization
Use Data Models with tstats
| tstats summariesonly=true count from datamodel=Network_Traffic
where All_Traffic.action=allowed
by All_Traffic.src_ip, All_Traffic.dest_ip, All_Traffic.dest_port, _time span=1h
| rename "All_Traffic.*" as *Limit Time Ranges and Use Indexed Fields
index=wineventlog source="WinEventLog:Security" EventCode=4688
earliest=-15m latest=now()
| where NOT match(New_Process_Name, "(?i)(svchost|csrss|lsass|services)")Use Summary Indexing for Historical Baselines
| tstats count from datamodel=Authentication where Authentication.action=failure by Authentication.src, _time span=1h
| collect index=summary source="auth_failure_baseline" marker="report_name=auth_failure_hourly"Testing and Validation
Test Against Known Attack Patterns
| makeresults count=1
| eval src_ip="10.0.0.50", failed_logins=25, unique_users=8, severity="high"
| eval description="Test brute force detection"
| append [
search index=wineventlog sourcetype=WinEventLog:Security EventCode=4625
earliest=-24h latest=now()
| stats count as failed_logins dc(TargetUserName) as unique_users by src_ip
| where failed_logins > 10 AND unique_users > 3
| eval severity="high"
]Calculate Detection Metrics
index=notable
| search rule_name="Brute Force*"
| stats count as total_alerts count(eval(status_label="Closed - True Positive")) as true_positives count(eval(status_label="Closed - False Positive")) as false_positives by rule_name
| eval precision=round(true_positives / (true_positives + false_positives) * 100, 2)
| eval fpr=round(false_positives / total_alerts * 100, 2)MITRE ATT&CK Mapping
References
- Splunk ES Correlation Searches Best Practices
- Writing Practical Splunk Detection Rules
- Configure Correlation Searches - Splunk Documentation
- SOC Prime - Correlation Events in Splunk
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.