Mmcp.market

conducting-cyber-risk-assessment-with-nist-800-30 skill

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

Conduct a defensible cybersecurity risk assessment using the NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 methodology: prepare scope and a risk model, identify threat sources and threat events, identify vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions, determine likelihood and impact, compute risk, and communicate results as a prioritized risk register. Use when an organization needs an actual risk *assessment* (not a maturity score), when a control framework (CSF, ISO 27001, RMF, SOC 2, PCI) requires a documented risk analysis as input, when leadership asks "what are our top risks and how bad are they", when assessing risk for a new system or major change, or when building a risk register from scratch. This is the methodology that feeds framework selection, ATO packages, and treatment decisions. Keywords: risk assessment, NIST 800-30, threat modeling, likelihood and impact, risk register, risk analysis, threat sources, vulnerabilities, risk determination, qualitative risk, risk matrix, residual risk, risk treatment.

A100/100content scan

Is the conducting-cyber-risk-assessment-with-nist-800-30 skill safe?

Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 5 files in the folder on 2026-09-28.

No findings.

Install the conducting-cyber-risk-assessment-with-nist-800-30 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/conducting-cyber-risk-assessment-with-nist-800-30 ~/.claude/skills/conducting-cyber-risk-assessment-with-nist-800-30
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

Conducting a Cyber Risk Assessment with NIST SP 800-30

When to Use

  • When the organization needs a real risk assessment — an analysis of specific threats, likelihoods, and impacts — rather than a maturity score against a framework. (Maturity tells you how mature your practices are; a risk assessment tells you what could hurt you and how badly.)
  • When another framework requires a documented risk analysis as a mandatory input: NIST CSF (ID.RA), ISO 27001 (Clause 6.1.2), NIST RMF / 800-37 (the Prepare and Select steps), SOC 2 (CC3), PCI DSS, or HIPAA (§164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A)).
  • When standing up or significantly changing a system and you must understand its risk before authorization or go-live.
  • When leadership asks for the organization's top risks, ranked, with a rationale they can defend to a board or regulator.
  • When building or refreshing an enterprise risk register.

Prerequisites

  • An inventory of in-scope assets, systems, and the information types they handle (system boundary defined).
  • Access to threat intelligence (internal incident history, sector ISAC feeds, MITRE ATT&CK) to ground threat-event likelihood in observed behavior.
  • Vulnerability data (scan results, pen-test findings, configuration/architecture review) for the in-scope systems.
  • Business context: which missions/processes the systems support, and what impact to confidentiality, integrity, or availability would mean in business terms.
  • Agreement on the risk model and scales before scoring, so results are comparable and repeatable (see references/standards.md).
  • Familiarity with the three-tier risk-management context from NIST SP 800-39 (organization, mission/business process, information system).

Workflow

NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 defines four steps. Steps 1 and 4 bookend the assessment; Step 2 is the analytic core.

1. Prepare for the assessment

Define and document:

  • Purpose (e.g., support an authorization decision, inform control selection, satisfy ISO 6.1.2).
  • Scope — organizational tier (Tier 1/2/3), systems, and time horizon.
  • Assumptions and constraints (e.g., assume an external adversarial threat with moderate capability).
  • Information sources — threat, vulnerability, and impact inputs.
  • Risk model and analytic approach — the factors (threat source, threat event, vulnerability, likelihood, impact) and the scales (qualitative Very Low–Very High, or semi-quantitative 0–10). Lock these now.

2. Conduct the assessment

Work through the analytic tasks in order. The 800-30 appendices provide the reference taxonomies (D–I).

2a. Identify threat sources (Appendix D). Classify by type: Adversarial (individuals, groups, nation-states — characterize capability, intent, targeting), Accidental (user error), Structural (equipment/software failure), Environmental (natural disasters, infrastructure outages).

2b. Identify threat events (Appendix E). The specific actions a source could take (e.g., "adversary exfiltrates credentials via phishing then moves laterally"). Map adversarial events to MITRE ATT&CK techniques for traceability.

2c. Identify vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions (Appendix F). Weaknesses (missing MFA, unpatched service) and conditions that make exploitation more or less likely (internet exposure, flat network, lack of segmentation).

2d. Determine likelihood (Appendix G). Assess the likelihood that a threat event is initiated (adversarial) or occurs (non-adversarial), and the likelihood it results in adverse impact given the vulnerabilities. Combine into an overall likelihood on the agreed scale.

2e. Determine impact (Appendix H). Magnitude of harm if the event succeeds — to operations, assets, individuals, other organizations, or the nation. Express against the agreed scale and in business terms.

2f. Determine risk (Appendix I). Risk is a function of likelihood and impact. Plot each threat event on the risk matrix (e.g., likelihood × impact → Very Low … Very High). Record the risk level, the contributing factors, and uncertainty/assumptions.

3. Communicate and share results

Produce the risk register and an executive briefing. For each risk: the threat event, affected assets, likelihood, impact, risk level, key contributing vulnerabilities, and a recommended treatment. Rank by risk level so decision-makers see the top risks first.

4. Maintain the assessment

Risk is not static. Define a refresh cadence and the triggers that force re-assessment (new system, major architecture change, significant incident, new threat intel). Track risk-acceptance decisions and treatment progress over time.

5. Drive treatment decisions

Hand the ranked register to risk owners. For each risk choose a treatment — mitigate (add/strengthen controls), transfer (insurance, contractual), avoid (stop the activity), or accept (document residual risk with an authorizing signature). Re-score residual risk after planned controls to show the post-treatment position.

Key Concepts

Tools & Systems

  • NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 — the methodology and Appendices D–I taxonomies (threat sources, events, vulnerabilities, likelihood, impact, risk).
  • NIST SP 800-39 — enterprise risk-management context (three tiers).
  • MITRE ATT&CK — to enumerate and ground adversarial threat events in observed TTPs.
  • Vulnerability scanners / pen-test reports — empirical vulnerability input.
  • Threat intel sources — sector ISACs, vendor feeds, internal incident history for likelihood grounding.
  • GRC / risk-register tooling — spreadsheet, or platforms such as ServiceNow GRC, Archer, OneTrust, to store and track the register.
  • FAIR (optional) — a quantitative model if leadership wants risk expressed in dollar ranges rather than qualitative bands.

Common Scenarios

  • CSF/ISO/SOC 2 needs a risk analysis. Run 800-30 to produce the documented assessment those frameworks require as input, then map results to their control sets.
  • New system before go-live. Assess threat events against the system's architecture and feed the result into the authorization (RMF Select/Authorize) decision.
  • Board wants the top risks. Deliver a ranked register with impacts in business terms and clear treatment recommendations.
  • Post-incident. Re-assess the affected systems; the incident updates likelihood evidence and may surface new threat events.
  • Annual refresh. Re-score against current threat intel and control changes; show movement in residual risk year over year.

Output Format

Produce a Risk Assessment Report using assets/template.md, containing:

  1. Purpose, scope, and tier — what was assessed and why.
  2. Assumptions, constraints, and risk model — the factors and scales used (so results are reproducible).
  3. Threat sources — by type, with adversarial characterization.
  4. Threat events — each with affected assets and ATT&CK mapping where adversarial.
  5. Vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions — tied to threat events.
  6. Risk register — table: ID, threat event, asset, likelihood, impact, risk level, contributing vulnerabilities, recommended treatment, owner, residual risk.
  7. Top risks summary — ranked, in business terms, for leadership.
  8. Maintenance plan — refresh cadence and re-assessment triggers.

Use scripts/process.py to score the register from a risk-input JSON (likelihood × impact → risk level on a configurable matrix), rank risks, and emit the register table.

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