Attack Flow

Attack Flow Generator

Generate SITF-compliant attack flow JSON files from attack descriptions or incident reports.

Usage

/attack-flow <attack-name> [source]

• attack-name: Identifier for the attack (e.g., "s1ngularity", "solarwinds")
• source: URL, "websearch" for auto-research, or omit to use conversation context

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Instructions

When this skill is invoked:

Phase 1: Research

• If source is "websearch" or a URL, gather attack details:
• Attack timeline and phases
• Entry point and initial access method
• Lateral movement and persistence techniques
• Data exfiltration or impact
• Affected components (CI/CD, VCS, Registry, Endpoint, Production)

• If source is omitted, use context from the current conversation.

Phase 2: Technique Mapping

• Read techniques.json to get the full technique library.

• For each attack step, find the best matching technique:
• Match by action semantics, not surface keywords
• Example: Uploading stolen data to repos → T-V003 (Secret Exfiltration), NOT T-V008 (Malicious Hosting)
• Example: Accessing VCS with stolen creds → T-V001 must come BEFORE any VCS actions

• If no matching technique exists:
• Check if attack step is in-scope for SITF (SDLC/supply-chain related)
• If in-scope: Create placeholder with "type": "technique-gap"
• If out-of-scope (generic cloud/infra attack): Note in output, reference MITRE ATT&CK
• Note in output that /technique-proposal should be run for in-scope gaps

Phase 3: Layout Calculation

Apply these layout rules:

Rule 1: Component Layout (Left-to-Right by Attack Flow)

• Order components by their sequence in the attack chain, not by standard SITF order
• If attack flows CI/CD → Registry → Endpoint → VCS, layout left-to-right accordingly
• Minimum horizontal gap between components: 80-100px
• Component x-positions: Use increments of ~300px starting from x=50

Rule 2: Technique Ordering (Top-to-Bottom)

• Primary: Order techniques by their sequence in the attack flow
• Secondary: Within same attack step, order by stage (Initial Access → Discovery → Post-Compromise)
• Vertical gap between techniques: ~130px
• First technique starts at y = component.y + 80

Rule 3: Technique-Component Centering

• Every technique node MUST be visually centered within its parent component
• Centering formula: technique.x = component.x + (component.width - technique.width) / 2
• With component.width=250 and technique.width=160: offset = (250-160)/2 = 45
• Example: component at x=50 → technique at x=95
• Example: component at x=350 → technique at x=395
• Validate technique.data.component matches parent component.data.componentId

Rule 4: Component Sizing

• Width = 250px (standard)
• Height = max(500, (technique_count × 130) + 160) — ensures adequate vertical space
• All components should have consistent height for visual alignment

Rule 5: Edge Connections

• Connect source.bottom → target.top for vertical flows within component
• Connect source.right → target.left for cross-component flows
• Add labels for significant transitions ("Stolen token", "pip install", etc.)
• Use "type": "smoothstep" for all edges

Phase 4: JSON Generation

Generate the attack flow JSON with this exact structure:

{
  "metadata": {
    "name": "Attack Name",
    "title": "Canvas Display Title",
    "created": "ISO-8601 timestamp",
    "version": "1.0",
    "framework": "SITF",
    "description": "Brief attack description"
  },
  "nodes": [],
  "edges": []
}

Metadata field guidelines:

• name: Short identifier (e.g., "tj-actions", "circleci")
• title: Concise canvas title, max 5-7 words (e.g., "tj-actions/changed-files Compromise", "CircleCI Security Incident (2023)")
• description: One sentence summary, max 150 characters
• Do NOT write paragraph-length titles — save details for technique customLabels and evidence fields

Node Structure - Entry Point

{
  "id": "entryPoint-attackname-1",
  "type": "entryPoint",
  "position": { "x": -150, "y": 200 },
  "data": {
    "label": "Entry Point Label"
  },
  "zIndex": 10,
  "width": 195,
  "height": 46
}

Node Structure - Component

{
  "id": "component-cicd-1",
  "type": "component",
  "position": { "x": 50, "y": 80 },
  "data": {
    "label": "CI/CD",
    "componentId": "cicd",
    "techniques": [],
    "customLabel": "Context-specific label"
  },
  "zIndex": -1,
  "width": 250,
  "height": 500,
  "style": { "width": 250, "height": 500 }
}

Node Structure - Technique (CRITICAL: use exact field names)

{
  "id": "technique-c003-1",
  "type": "technique",
  "position": { "x": 95, "y": 160 },
  "data": {
    "id": "T-C003",
    "name": "PWN Request / Poisoned Pipeline Execution",
    "component": "cicd",
    "stage": "Initial Access",
    "description": "Full description from techniques.json",
    "risks": ["risk1", "risk2"],
    "controls": {
      "protective": [{ "name": "control1", "frameworks": {...} }],
      "detective": [{ "name": "control2", "frameworks": {...} }]
    },
    "customLabel": "Attack-specific context",
    "evidence": "Optional: specific evidence from the attack"
  },
  "zIndex": 10,
  "width": 160,
  "height": 96
}

IMPORTANT technique.data fields:

• id: Use technique ID (e.g., "T-C003") — NOT "techniqueId"
• name: Use technique name — NOT "label"
• risks: Copy full array from techniques.json
• controls: Copy full object with protective and detective arrays from techniques.json
• customLabel: Add attack-specific context (e.g., "PRs #18018, #18020")
• evidence: Optional field for attack-specific evidence

Node Structure - Exit Point

{
  "id": "exitPoint-attackname-1",
  "type": "exitPoint",
  "position": { "x": 950, "y": 200 },
  "data": {
    "label": "Secondary Supply Chain Attack"
  },
  "zIndex": 10,
  "width": 144,
  "height": 46
}

Edge Structure (with full styling)

{
  "id": "edge-source-target",
  "source": "technique-c003-1",
  "sourceHandle": "bottom",
  "target": "technique-c004-1",
  "targetHandle": "top",
  "type": "smoothstep",
  "animated": false,
  "markerEnd": { "type": "arrowclosed" },
  "label": "",
  "labelStyle": { "fill": "#DC2626", "fontWeight": 600, "fontSize": 12 },
  "labelBgStyle": { "fill": "#FEE2E2", "fillOpacity": 0.9 }
}

Cross-component Edge (with gray styling)

{
  "id": "edge-cross-component",
  "source": "technique-c011-1",
  "sourceHandle": "right",
  "target": "technique-r001-1",
  "targetHandle": "left",
  "type": "smoothstep",
  "animated": false,
  "style": { "stroke": "#9ca3af" },
  "markerEnd": { "type": "arrowclosed", "color": "#9ca3af" },
  "label": "Transition label",
  "labelStyle": { "fill": "#DC2626", "fontWeight": 600, "fontSize": 12 },
  "labelBgStyle": { "fill": "#FEE2E2", "fillOpacity": 0.9 }
}

Node types:

• entryPoint: Attack entry (Phishing, Vulnerability Exploit, Stolen Credentials, Malicious Fork PR, etc.)
• component: SITF component container (endpoint, vcs, cicd, registry, production)
• technique: Attack technique from techniques.json
• technique-gap: Placeholder for missing technique (flag for /technique-proposal)
• exitPoint: Attack outcome (Future Breach, Persistence, Secondary Supply Chain Attack, etc.)
• victimZone: Visual container grouping components belonging to a single victim organization

Victim Zones (Multi-Organization Attacks)

When an attack involves multiple victim organizations (e.g., supply chain attacks that cascade across vendors), use victimZone nodes to visually group each victim's components.

When to use victim zones:

• Attack spreads from one organization to another (e.g., TeamPCP: Aqua → Checkmarx → GitHub)
• Multiple independent victims are compromised via shared dependency
• Supply chain attack where upstream compromise affects downstream organizations

Victim Zone Structure:

{
  "id": "victimZone-aqua",
  "type": "victimZone",
  "position": { "x": -24, "y": 15 },
  "data": {
    "label": "Aqua Security",
    "color": "#3B82F6"
  },
  "zIndex": -10,
  "width": 1444,
  "height": 945,
  "style": { "width": 1444, "height": 945 }
}

Layout rules for victim zones:

• Place victim zones left-to-right in order of compromise (first victim on left)
• Size each zone to fully contain its components with ~20px padding
• Use distinct colors for each victim (e.g., #3B82F6 blue, #06B6D4 cyan, #8B5CF6 purple)
• Set zIndex: -10 so zones render behind components and techniques
• Connect cross-zone techniques with edges showing the pivot between organizations

Reference: See flows/incidents/teampcp-campaign.json for a multi-victim example with 4 victim zones.

Phase 5: Control Gap Analysis

After generating the flow, analyze defensive gaps:

• For each technique used in the attack:
• List the protective controls from techniques.json
• Identify which controls were missing (enabled the attack)

• Generate a Controls Gap Summary:

   | Technique | Missing Control | Type | OWASP SPVS |
   |-----------|-----------------|------|------------|
   | T-C003    | Minimal workflow permissions | Protective | V3.1 |
   | T-C005    | Log sanitization | Protective | V2.5 |
   | T-C005    | Runtime agent on runner | Detective | V5.4 |

• Prioritize recommendations by:
• Number of techniques the control would prevent
• Stage of attack it would block (earlier = higher priority)

Phase 6: Validation

Run this checklist before outputting:

[ ] Valid JSON structure (parse test passes)
[ ] Required fields present: metadata.{name,title,created,version,framework}, nodes[], edges[]
[ ] All node IDs are unique
[ ] All edge source/target reference valid node IDs
[ ] Technique nodes use data.id and data.name (NOT techniqueId/label)
[ ] Technique nodes include full risks[] array and controls object with protective/detective arrays
[ ] Out-of-scope attack steps noted but not forced into SITF techniques
[ ] All techniques centered within components (x = component.x + 45 for width=250)
[ ] Component heights are adequate (minimum 500px)
[ ] Techniques ordered by attack flow sequence
[ ] Initial Access techniques appear first when order is ambiguous
[ ] All technique IDs exist in techniques.json OR flagged as technique-gap
[ ] Exit points connected to terminal techniques
[ ] No orphaned nodes (every non-entry node has incoming edge)
[ ] Edges have sourceHandle, targetHandle, markerEnd, labelStyle, labelBgStyle

Phase 7: Output

• Write the JSON file to flows/incidents/<attack-name>.json
• Validate the JSON with Python: python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('file'))"
• Provide output summary:

## Attack Flow: <attack-name>

### Attack Chain
1. Initial Access via [entry point]
2. [Technique] → [Technique] → ...
3. Impact: [exit point]

### Techniques Used
| ID | Name | Component | Stage |
|----|------|-----------|-------|
| T-C003 | PWN Request | CI/CD | Initial Access |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Control Gaps Identified
| Missing Control | Type | Would Prevent | OWASP SPVS |
|-----------------|------|---------------|------------|
| Minimal workflow permissions | Protective | T-C003 | V3.1 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Out-of-Scope Steps
- [Step X]: Generic cloud attack, see MITRE ATT&CK T1078

### Technique Gaps
- [Step Y]: No matching SITF technique, run `/technique-proposal`

• If any technique-gaps exist, list them and recommend running /technique-proposal

Example

/attack-flow ultralytics websearch

This will:

• Search for ultralytics attack details
• Map attack steps to SITF techniques
• Generate flows/incidents/ultralytics.json
• Output attack flow summary

Reference: Working Sample

See flows/incidents/ultralytics.json or flows/incidents/tj-actions.json for correctly structured examples.