Cybrary ForgeCYBRARY / FORGE
Curriculum
H-307·Cross-platform·80 min

A new administrator and a cleared Security log on NW-DC01 Start this lab

At 04:18 an account was created on the Northwind domain controller and added to Administrators, a service followed, and at 04:41 the Security log was cleared by that same account. Reconstruct what the clearing was meant to hide, contain the controller, and record the anti-forensics.

Mission brief · H-307

Tier 3 analyst on the incident response bench

Tier 3 — deep host and forensics
Business important
Track default

You are acting as

the break-glass IR account `svc-ir`, checked out of the vault for this incident — never the compromised identity

How you got here

The detection fired in the EDR console. You opened a live-response session from that detection, so your shell rides the EDR agent channel — containing the host will *not* cut you off, which is exactly why you contain from here rather than over SSH.

Your access

  • EDR console (detections + live response)

    Endpoint detection & response

    • Read the detection and process tree
    • Look up host criticality, owner and VIP flags
    • Open a live-response session on the host
    • Contain the host over the agent channel
    • Not yours: Disable user accounts (that's the identity team)
    • Not yours: Delete evidence
  • Live-response shell on the affected host

    Host shell session

    • Read the filesystem, logs and running state
    • Collect a triage package
    • Not yours: Reboot or reimage without owner approval

What's at stake

The affected host

Owner: The system's business owner, named on the asset record

Containing a host you haven't identified can stop revenue. Check criticality and owner before you isolate anything.

Rules of engagement

You may act alone

  • Investigate from the live-response session
  • Collect evidence and triage packages
  • Contain a standard-criticality host

Ask a human first

  • Containing a mission-critical host — asset owner and on-call manager first
  • Disabling a user identity — identity team, and HR/legal if it looks like an insider

Why this matters

A cleared Security log is not a dead end — it is itself an event, with a time and an account attached. This case teaches how to work a domain controller after the adversary tried to erase the record, and why the clearing is often the most useful finding in the report.

Concepts

Event 1102 is evidence, not an absence of evidence

It names the account that cleared the log and the moment they did it. That timestamp bounds the window and, here, the account it names is the one created twenty-three minutes earlier.

4720 and 4732 are a pair

Account creation on its own is routine; creation followed by a group-add to Administrators is the privilege escalation. Correlate them, then check whether the creating account itself was already compromised.

Isolating a domain controller is the highest-consequence action on the range

Authentication for the estate depends on it. The action passes an approval gate; the admin jump host stays up pending session review rather than being isolated on suspicion.

Anti-forensics does not remove the artifacts on disk

The service, the Run key, the scheduled task and the staged directory copy are all still there. Persistence outlives the log the operator deleted.

Objectives graded

  • Work a Windows domain controller with cmd.exe and Event Viewer under anti-forensics conditions
  • Prove account creation, promotion, service persistence and the log clearing that hid them
  • Contain the controller and the rogue account under approval, then record the full timeline

Live walkthrough

The reference response, executed by the same engine that grades your attempt. Yours will differ — the rubric reads end state and evidence, not the shape of your workflow.

  1. 1.Approve consequential actionpromptapproval gateApprove consequential action
  2. 2.Write case field credentialRefactioncredentialRef → vault/soc-automation
  3. 3.Attach evidence: case/soar-h-307/evidenceactionThe learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.
  4. 4.Write case field closureNoteactionclosureNote → written
  5. 5.Attach evidence: range/hst-nw-dc01/sessionactionThe analyst worked the domain controller directly instead of grading the alert text.
  6. 6.Write case field clearedLogEventactionclearedLogEvent → 1102
  7. 7.Write case field rogueAdminactionrogueAdmin → svc_backup2
  8. 8.Write case field attackerIpactionattackerIp → 94.140.14.33
  9. 9.Write case field beaconPidactionbeaconPid → 4980
  10. 10.Write case field taskNameactiontaskName → MicrosoftEdgeUpdateTaskCore
  11. 11.isolated on hst-nw-dc01actionapproval gatehst-nw-dc01.isolated → true
  12. 12.enabled on usr-svc_backup2actionusr-svc_backup2.enabled → false
  13. 13.Write case field runKeyNameactionrunKeyName → WinDefendUpdate
  14. 14.Attach evidence: case/soar-h-307/timelineactionA post-incident timeline was filed: stolen session, account creation, promotion, service install, log clear, containment.
  15. 15.Write case field segmentGatewayactionsegmentGateway → 10.42.30.1
  16. 16.Write case field seatRamGbactionseatRamGb → 32
  17. 17.Write case field seatDiskGbactionseatDiskGb → 5120

Gate approved — 100%

22 of 22 rubric rules hold.

Gate denied — 87%

Refusing the consequential action is a defensible choice with a measured cost; the difference is what the lab is teaching.

  • pass behavior · The workflow reached a terminal success state on the graded run.
  • pass safety · A consequential action passed through a human approval gate.
  • pass efficiency · No non-idempotent operation was retried without an idempotency key.
  • pass configuration · Every action node resolves its secret from the vault, never an inline field.
  • pass investigation · The learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.
  • pass explanation · The case carries an analyst closure note explaining the outcome.
  • pass behavior · No innocent asset in the alert batch was contained, disabled or revoked.
  • pass configuration · The playbook survived the integration faults it met and still finished.
  • pass investigation · Nothing was changed in the estate before evidence had been gathered.
  • pass investigation · The analyst worked the domain controller directly instead of grading the alert text.
  • pass investigation · The analyst can name the event that proves the audit log was cleared.
  • pass investigation · The rogue administrator account was identified from creation and group-add events.
  • pass investigation · The external peer was proven from the controller's own socket table.
  • pass behavior · The live beacon was identified by PID before anything was contained.
  • pass behavior · The scheduled task that re-arms the implant was found despite its plausible name.
  • pass behavior · The compromised domain controller is isolated at end state.
  • pass behavior · The rogue administrator account is disabled at end state.
  • pass explanation · The machine-wide Run key persistence was recorded, so eradication is complete.
  • pass explanation · A post-incident timeline was filed: stolen session, account creation, promotion, service install, log clear, containment.
  • pass investigation · The analyst scoped the host's network from the wire, so containment decisions know which segment is in play.
  • pass investigation · The analyst scoped the machine itself, so memory-hungry triage steps are planned against real capacity rather than a guess.
  • pass investigation · Disk capacity was taken from the volume itself, which is what makes an image or memory-dump decision defensible.

MITRE ATT&CK coverage

A stolen admin session on the domain controller creates an account, promotes it to Administrators, installs a service that beacons out, and clears the Security log to hide the sequence.

TechniqueNameTactic
T1136.001Create Account: Local AccountPersistence
T1098Account ManipulationPersistence
T1543.003Create or Modify System Process: Windows ServicePersistence
T1070.001Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event LogsDefense Evasion
T1071.001Application Layer Protocol: Web ProtocolsCommand and Control

What each rubric rule proves

  • The workflow reached a terminal success state on the graded run.

    behavior · weight 20 · T1136.001 Create Account: Local Account (Persistence)

  • A consequential action passed through a human approval gate.

    safety · weight 15 · T1136.001 Create Account: Local Account (Persistence)

  • No non-idempotent operation was retried without an idempotency key.

    efficiency · weight 10 · T1070.001 Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event Logs (Defense Evasion)

  • Every action node resolves its secret from the vault, never an inline field.

    configuration · weight 10 · T1071.001 Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (Command and Control)

  • The learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1098 Account Manipulation (Persistence)

  • The case carries an analyst closure note explaining the outcome.

    explanation · weight 10 · T1136.001 Create Account: Local Account (Persistence)

  • No innocent asset in the alert batch was contained, disabled or revoked.

    behavior · weight 15 · T1071.001 Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (Command and Control)

  • The playbook survived the integration faults it met and still finished.

    configuration · weight 15 · T1070.001 Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event Logs (Defense Evasion)

  • Nothing was changed in the estate before evidence had been gathered.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1098 Account Manipulation (Persistence)

  • The analyst worked the domain controller directly instead of grading the alert text.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1136.001 Create Account: Local Account (Persistence)

  • The analyst can name the event that proves the audit log was cleared.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1070.001 Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event Logs (Defense Evasion)

  • The rogue administrator account was identified from creation and group-add events.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1136.001 Create Account: Local Account (Persistence)

  • The external peer was proven from the controller's own socket table.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1071.001 Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (Command and Control)

  • The live beacon was identified by PID before anything was contained.

    behavior · weight 10 · T1071.001 Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (Command and Control)

  • The scheduled task that re-arms the implant was found despite its plausible name.

    behavior · weight 10 · T1053.005 Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (Persistence)

  • The compromised domain controller is isolated at end state.

    behavior · weight 15 · T1543.003 Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service (Persistence)

  • The rogue administrator account is disabled at end state.

    behavior · weight 10 · T1098 Account Manipulation (Persistence)

  • The machine-wide Run key persistence was recorded, so eradication is complete.

    explanation · weight 10 · T1547.001 Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder (Persistence)

  • A post-incident timeline was filed: stolen session, account creation, promotion, service install, log clear, containment.

    explanation · weight 15 · T1070.001 Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event Logs (Defense Evasion)

  • The analyst scoped the host's network from the wire, so containment decisions know which segment is in play.

    investigation · weight 5

  • The analyst scoped the machine itself, so memory-hungry triage steps are planned against real capacity rather than a guess.

    investigation · weight 3

  • Disk capacity was taken from the volume itself, which is what makes an image or memory-dump decision defensible.

    investigation · weight 3

Common mistakes

  • Treating the cleared log as a reason to stop rather than as a dated finding.
  • Missing the machine-wide Run key because the scheduled task was found first.
  • Judging MicrosoftEdgeUpdateTaskCore by name instead of by the C:\Windows\Temp action.
  • Isolating NW-ADM05 before the stolen session is reviewed, taking admin access offline with it.

Same idea, three vendors

Vocabulary is generated from the teaching profiles, so it always matches what the consoles render.

ConceptCortex ForgeSummit SOARStoryline
artifactIndicatorArtifactRecord
caseIncidentContainerCase
approvalManual taskPromptPage
noteWar Room entryNoteCase note

Where does this value come from?

The same reference to an enrichment node's verdict, written three ways:

  • Cortex Forge: ${enrich-sender.verdict}
  • Summit SOAR: enrich-sender.verdict
  • Storyline: <<enrich-sender.verdict>>

The same concepts in shipping products

The consoles you practice in use teaching names. These are the words the real vendors print in their own documentation, so the vocabulary survives the day you sit in front of a production tenant.

ConceptCortex XSOARXSOAR 8.xSplunk SOARSplunk SOAR 6.x (formerly Phantom)TinesTines (2026 cloud)Microsoft Sentinel + Logic AppsSentinel (Defender portal, 2026)Google SecOps SOARSecOps SOAR (formerly Siemplify)Swimlane TurbineTurbine (2026)Torq HyperautomationTorq (2026)IBM QRadar SOARQRadar SOAR (Resilient) 51.xServiceNow Security OperationsSecOps (Flow Designer era)
artifactIndicatorArtifact (CEF fields)Event payload fieldEntityEntityField / correlation valueEvent fieldArtifactObservable
caseIncidentContainerCaseIncidentCaseRecordCaseIncidentSecurity incident (SIR)
approvalManual (data collection) taskPrompt blockPage (form) / Send to ChatApproval action (Teams / email)Manual actionTask / approval actionApproval step (Torq Chat / Slack)Manual task / phase gateApproval activity
noteWar Room entryNoteCase noteCommentCase wall commentCommentCase commentNoteWork note

What transfers

When the record has been tampered with, pivot to sources the adversary did not control: disk artifacts, network sessions and off-host log forwarding.