Cybrary ForgeCYBRARY / FORGE
Curriculum
C-357·Cross-platform·30 min

The invoice that asked to be enabled Start this lab

A finance clerk opened a macro-enabled invoice from an external sender and clicked through the warning. Name the file, judge it against the invoices this team receives every day, and clear the same message from every other mailbox it reached.

Mission brief · C-357

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

Most intrusions still start with a person opening a file they were asked to open, so the response is a campaign clean-up, not a single machine clean-up.

Concepts

The file is the campaign

One attachment name links every mailbox that received it; the sender address changes far more easily than the payload.

Legitimate lookalikes

Teams that receive documents all day cannot treat a document as suspicious by itself — behavior after opening decides.

Clean every copy

A cleaned endpoint means nothing while the same message sits unread in other mailboxes.

Objectives graded

  • Name the attachment that was opened
  • Judge it against the invoices this team legitimately receives
  • Remove the message from every mailbox it reached

Incident timeline

Relative to the moment the alert fired. One of these beats is ordinary activity.

  1. −34mA supplier-styled mail with a macro-enabled attachment reaches 14 mailboxesMail gatewayT1566.001
  2. −18mThe invoice intake service opens twelve ordinary supplier invoicesMail gatewayordinary activity
  3. −3mThe clerk opens the attachment and enables contentEDRT1204.002
  4. alertThe document process starts a shell and the alert firesEDRT1059.001
  5. +6mThe same message is still sitting unread in eleven other mailboxesMail gatewayT1566.001

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-c-357/evidenceactionThe learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.
  4. 4.Write case field closureNoteactionclosureNote → written
  5. 5.Write case field attachmentNameactionattachmentName → Invoice_2026-03.xlsm
  6. 6.verdict on ind-phish-attachactionind-phish-attach.verdict → malicious
  7. 7.mailPurged on hst-nw-wks31actionapproval gatehst-nw-wks31.mailPurged → true

Gate approved — 100%

12 of 12 rubric rules hold.

Gate denied — 79%

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 learner named the attachment that was opened, not the sending domain.
  • pass investigation · The attachment was judged apart from the genuine invoices arriving alongside it.
  • pass behavior · The message was removed from every mailbox it reached, not just this one.

MITRE ATT&CK coverage

A macro-enabled attachment opened by hand, with the same message still waiting in eleven other mailboxes.

TechniqueNameTactic
T1566.001Phishing: Spearphishing AttachmentInitial Access
T1204.002User Execution: Malicious FileExecution
T1059.001Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShellExecution

What each rubric rule proves

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

    behavior · weight 20

  • A consequential action passed through a human approval gate.

    safety · weight 15

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

    efficiency · weight 10

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

    configuration · weight 10

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

    investigation · weight 10

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

    explanation · weight 10

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

    behavior · weight 15

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

    configuration · weight 15

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

    investigation · weight 10

  • The learner named the attachment that was opened, not the sending domain.

    investigation · weight 20 · T1566.001 Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (Initial Access)

  • The attachment was judged apart from the genuine invoices arriving alongside it.

    investigation · weight 15 · T1204.002 User Execution: Malicious File (Execution)

  • The message was removed from every mailbox it reached, not just this one.

    behavior · weight 20 · T1059.001 Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell (Execution)

Common mistakes

  • Closing the case after reimaging the one machine that opened it.
  • Blocking the sending domain and calling that eradication.

Same idea, three vendors

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

ConceptCortex ForgeSummit SOARStoryline
caseIncidentContainerCase
alertAlertEventEvent
artifactIndicatorArtifactRecord
workflowPlaybookPlaybookStory
workflow-runPlaybook runPlaybook debug runStory run
nodeTaskBlockAction
connectorIntegrationAppCredential-backed action
connector-instanceIntegration instanceAssetResource
credentialCredentialAsset credentialCredential
approvalManual taskPromptPage
child-workflowSub-playbookChild playbookSub-story
context-pathContext pathDatapathEvent path
queueIncidentsEventsCases
taskWork Plan taskTaskCase task
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)
caseIncidentContainerCaseIncidentCaseRecordCaseIncidentSecurity incident (SIR)
alertAlertEventEventAlertAlertInbound record / signalTrigger eventEscalated offense / alertSecurity alert
artifactIndicatorArtifact (CEF fields)Event payload fieldEntityEntityField / correlation valueEvent fieldArtifactObservable
workflowPlaybookPlaybookStoryPlaybook (Logic App)PlaybookPlaybookWorkflowWorkflow (BPMN)Flow / subflow
workflow-runPlaybook runPlaybook run / debug runEvent flowLogic App runPlaybook executionPlaybook executionExecutionWorkflow executionFlow execution
nodeTaskBlockActionAction / stepAction / stepActionStepFunction / scriptFlow action
connectorIntegrationAppHTTP Request action / ToolConnectorIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationAppSpoke
connector-instanceIntegration instanceAssetCredential + resource pairAPI connectionIntegration instance (environment-scoped)AssetIntegration connectionApp configuration (app.config)Connection & credential alias
credentialCredentialAsset configuration secretCredentialManaged identity / connection secretIntegration parameter (secret)Vault secretSecretApp host secretCredential record
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
child-workflowSub-playbookChild playbookSend to StoryNested Logic AppBlockSub-playbookNested workflowCalled workflowSubflow
context-pathContext path (${...})DatapathFormula (<<path.to.value>>)Expression (@{body('step')})Placeholder ([Entity.Identifier])Reference ($record.field)Expression ({{ .event.field }})Rule/script object (incident.properties)Data pill
queueIncidents viewEvent / Case listCasesIncidents gridCases queueApplication workspaceCasesIncident listSIR queue
taskWork Plan taskTask (workbook phase)Case taskIncident taskTaskTaskCase taskTask (within phase)Response task
noteWar Room entryNoteCase noteCommentCase wall commentCommentCase commentNoteWork note

What transfers

The same clean-up shape applies to malicious links, calendar invites and chat file shares.