Deploy Breach and Attack Simulation tools to continuously validate security control effectiveness by safely emulating real-world attack techniques across the kill chain.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionimplementing-continuous-security-validation-with-basExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas from mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas. Access via /implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
8.6K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
8.6K
stars
| name | implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas |
| description | Deploy Breach and Attack Simulation tools to continuously validate security control effectiveness by safely emulating real-world attack techniques across the kill chain. |
| domain | cybersecurity |
| subdomain | vulnerability-management |
| tags | - breach-attack-simulation - bas - security-validation - safebreach - attackiq - picus - cymulate - mitre-attack |
| version | '1.0' |
| author | mahipal |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| d3fend_techniques | - File Metadata Consistency Validation - Application Protocol Command Analysis - Identifier Analysis - Content Format Conversion - Message Analysis |
| nist_csf | - ID.RA-01 - ID.RA-02 - ID.IM-02 - ID.RA-06 |
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) is an automated, continuous approach to validating security control effectiveness by safely executing real-world attack techniques against production security infrastructure. Unlike traditional penetration testing (point-in-time), BAS platforms continuously simulate threats mapped to MITRE ATT&CK, testing endpoint protection, network security, email gateways, SIEM detection, and incident response capabilities. Leading platforms include SafeBreach, AttackIQ, Picus Security (2024 Gartner Customers' Choice), Cymulate, Pentera, and SCYTHE. BAS 2.0 solutions safely emulate real attacker behavior across the entire IT environment without requiring pre-deployed agents on every endpoint.
| Aspect | BAS | Penetration Testing | Red Team |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Continuous/scheduled | Annual/quarterly | Annual |
| Automation | Fully automated | Manual with tools | Manual |
| Scope | Full kill chain | Specific targets | Goal-oriented |
| Safety | Safe simulation, no exploitation | Controlled exploitation | Real exploitation |
| Coverage | Thousands of techniques | Hundreds of tests | Focused scenarios |
| Output | Control gap analysis | Vulnerability report | Narrative report |
| Cost model | Subscription | Per engagement | Per engagement |
| Tactic | Example BAS Simulations | Controls Tested |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Access | Phishing payload delivery, exploit public apps | Email gateway, WAF, IPS |
| Execution | PowerShell, WMI, malicious macros | EDR, application control |
| Persistence | Registry run keys, scheduled tasks, services | EDR, SIEM detection rules |
| Privilege Escalation | Token manipulation, UAC bypass | EDR, PAM, SIEM |
| Defense Evasion | Process injection, obfuscation, timestomping | EDR, behavioral analytics |
| Credential Access | Mimikatz, Kerberoasting, LSASS dump | EDR, credential guard |
| Discovery | AD enumeration, network scanning | SIEM, NDR |
| Lateral Movement | PsExec, WMI, RDP, SMB | NDR, microsegmentation |
| Collection | Screen capture, keylogging, email collection | DLP, UEBA |
| Exfiltration | HTTP/DNS exfil, cloud storage upload | DLP, CASB, proxy |
| Command & Control | C2 beaconing, DNS tunneling, encrypted channels | NGFW, proxy, NDR |
Control Effectiveness = (Attacks Prevented + Attacks Detected) / Total Attacks Simulated * 100
Example:
Total simulations: 500
Prevented (blocked): 350
Detected (alerted): 100
Missed (no action): 50
Prevention Rate: 350/500 = 70%
Detection Rate: 100/500 = 20%
Overall Score: 450/500 = 90%
Gap Rate: 50/500 = 10%
Architecture:
Management Console (Cloud SaaS):
- Central orchestration and reporting
- Attack scenario library management
- MITRE ATT&CK mapping dashboard
Simulation Agents:
- Attacker Agent: Simulates threat actor behavior
- Target Agent: Receives simulated attacks
- Network Agent: Tests network-level controls
Deploy agents across zones:
- Corporate network (workstations)
- DMZ (web servers)
- Data center (critical servers)
- Cloud environments (AWS/Azure/GCP)
- Remote/VPN segment
# Example BAS scenario configuration
scenario:
name: "APT29 (Cozy Bear) Full Kill Chain"
threat_group: APT29
mitre_attack_techniques:
- T1566.001 # Spearphishing Attachment
- T1059.001 # PowerShell Execution
- T1547.001 # Registry Run Key Persistence
- T1003.001 # LSASS Memory Credential Dump
- T1021.002 # SMB/Windows Admin Shares
- T1071.001 # Web Protocol C2
- T1048.003 # DNS Exfiltration
phases:
- name: "Initial Access"
actions:
- deliver_phishing_payload:
type: office_macro
target: email_gateway
variants: [docm, xlsm, ppam]
- name: "Execution & Persistence"
actions:
- execute_powershell:
encoded: true
amsi_bypass: true
- create_scheduled_task:
technique: T1053.005
- name: "Credential Access"
actions:
- dump_lsass:
method: [procdump, comsvcs, nanodump]
- name: "Lateral Movement"
actions:
- psexec_lateral:
target: internal_server
- wmi_lateral:
target: file_server
- name: "Exfiltration"
actions:
- dns_exfiltration:
data_size: 10MB
encoding: base64
def map_bas_results_to_controls(simulation_results):
"""Map BAS results to security control effectiveness."""
control_scores = {}
control_mapping = {
"email_gateway": ["T1566.001", "T1566.002", "T1566.003"],
"edr": ["T1059.001", "T1003.001", "T1055", "T1547.001"],
"ngfw": ["T1071.001", "T1071.004", "T1048"],
"siem": ["T1053.005", "T1021.002", "T1087"],
"dlp": ["T1048.003", "T1567", "T1041"],
"ndr": ["T1071", "T1021", "T1040"],
}
for control, techniques in control_mapping.items():
relevant = [r for r in simulation_results
if r["technique_id"] in techniques]
if not relevant:
continue
prevented = sum(1 for r in relevant if r["result"] == "prevented")
detected = sum(1 for r in relevant if r["result"] == "detected")
missed = sum(1 for r in relevant if r["result"] == "missed")
total = len(relevant)
control_scores[control] = {
"total_tests": total,
"prevented": prevented,
"detected": detected,
"missed": missed,
"prevention_rate": round(prevented / total * 100, 1),
"detection_rate": round(detected / total * 100, 1),
"effectiveness": round((prevented + detected) / total * 100, 1),
}
return control_scores
Validation Schedule:
Daily:
- Malware delivery simulation (email gateway test)
- C2 communication simulation (firewall/proxy test)
- Known ransomware behavior simulation (EDR test)
Weekly:
- Full kill chain simulation (APT scenario)
- Lateral movement simulation (network segmentation test)
- Data exfiltration simulation (DLP test)
Monthly:
- Full MITRE ATT&CK coverage assessment
- New threat group TTP simulation
- Regression testing after security control changes
On-Demand:
- After firewall rule changes
- After EDR policy updates
- After new threat intelligence (zero-day response)
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills
implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
I recommend implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Registry listing for implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
Registry listing for implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Registry listing for implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Keeps context tight: implementing-continuous-security-validation-with-bas is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
showing 1-10 of 57