Threat Hunting — Proactive Adversary Detection

Hunt for adversaries who are already inside but haven't tripped an alert. Distinct from incident-triage (reactive, alert is firing) and from siem-detection (engineer rules so future alerts fire). This skill is the proactive layer — assume something has slipped through, look for it.

Hunting is hypothesis-driven, not browse-driven. "Let's look around the SIEM" is not hunting; "let's check for the specific pattern of T1059.001 (PowerShell) being launched by Office processes" is.

Cross-references: siem-detection (queries you write here often graduate to detection rules), incident-triage (what to do if a hunt confirms a finding), breach-patterns (a rich source of hunt hypotheses), disk-forensics (deeper analysis on confirmed hits).

Methodology — PEAK framework

The PEAK (Prepare, Execute, Act, Knowledge) framework from Splunk SURGe — the most actionable hunting methodology I've seen.

Step 1: Prepare

Form the hypothesis. Strong hypotheses share three properties:

1. Specific — names a technique, log source, and expected artifact
2. Testable — describes what evidence would confirm or deny
3. Bounded — has a defined time window and scope

Bad hypothesis: "Look for anomalies in the SIEM" Good hypothesis: "Within the last 30 days, no service account should have run interactive PowerShell with -encodedCommand flag (T1059.001 + T1027). Search Sysmon event 1 for parent process = service-account-launched scheduled task, child = powershell.exe, command line contains -enc or -encodedcommand."

Hunt hypothesis sources, ranked by yield:

Step 2: Execute

Run the hunt. Three execution patterns:

Pattern A — Pivot from indicator. Start with a specific IOC (IP, hash, domain) and look for any host or user that touched it.

// Sentinel — pivot from a suspicious IP across all log sources
union *
| where TimeGenerated > ago(90d)
| where contains("198.51.100.42")
| project TimeGenerated, Type, Computer, _ResourceId

Pattern B — Pivot from technique. Start with an ATT&CK technique and look for any host doing that.

// Splunk — T1547.001 Registry Run Keys persistence
index=sysmon EventCode=13 
  TargetObject="*\\Software\\Microsoft\\Windows\\CurrentVersion\\Run\\*"
| stats values(Details) by Computer, User
| where len(values(Details)) > 1

Pattern C — Anomaly hunt. Establish a baseline; look for outliers.

// Sentinel — service accounts authenticating from new geographies
SigninLogs
| where TimeGenerated > ago(30d)
| where UserType == "Service"
| summarize Countries = make_set(Location) by UserPrincipalName
| where array_length(Countries) > 1

Step 3: Act

For every hit, three possible outcomes:

Don't leave hits in the "unknown" state. Either resolve, or hand off with a documented next-step.

Step 4: Knowledge

The hunt's value isn't the one hit — it's the artifacts.

For each hunt:

• If you found something, write a detection rule so future occurrences fire automatically (see siem-detection)
• If you didn't find anything, document the hunt — query, scope, time window, conclusion. Future hunters won't re-do it
• If the hunt was hard because of missing log coverage, document the gap and create a backlog item to fix log ingestion

Hunts that don't produce artifacts are work without compounding return. The whole point of the methodology is to turn every hunt into either a rule, a documented dead-end, or a coverage improvement.

High-yield hunt catalog

Persistence

• Scheduled tasks created outside business hours — schtasks.exe /create from Sysmon event 1 + EventCode 4698 from Windows Security
• Run-key persistence — registry writes to HKCU\...\Run, HKLM\...\Run, HKCU\...\RunOnce
• Service installation outside known software-install windows — EventCode 7045
• WMI persistence — __EventFilter and CommandLineEventConsumer subscriptions
• Login items / launch daemons (macOS) — /Library/LaunchDaemons/.plist, ~/Library/LaunchAgents/.plist
• Cron / systemd timers (Linux) — /etc/cron., /etc/systemd/system/.timer, user crontabs

Defense evasion

• PowerShell with -EncodedCommand — base64-encoded scripts are evasion 80% of the time
• certutil.exe -decode — LOLBin used to decode dropper payloads
• Sysmon EventCode 7 (Image loaded) for known-bad DLLs from non-standard paths
• Process executing from %TEMP%, %APPDATA%, \Users\Public — non-standard exec paths
• Command-line obfuscation patterns — large amounts of ^, backticks, cmd /c echo y | ...

Credential access

• LSASS access from unexpected processes — Sysmon EventCode 10 with TargetImage = lsass.exe and SourceImage not in [mssense.exe, NisSrv.exe, ...]
• procdump.exe or comsvcs.dll use — process-dumping LOLBins
• NTDS.dit access outside backup windows — domain controller DB
• AWS GetSessionToken or AssumeRole from new IPs — credential capture pivot
• OAuth consent grants for high-scope applications — see iam-audit

Discovery

• net group "Domain Admins" or equivalent enumeration commands
• AD service ticket requests for high-value SPNs (Kerberoasting prep) — EventCode 4769 with RC4 encryption
• whoami /all, quser, nltest /domain_trusts — situational awareness commands run by service accounts (humans rarely run these)
• Cloud API listing — ListBuckets, ListUsers, DescribeInstances from unusual principals

Lateral movement

• WMI execution to remote hosts — Sysmon EventCode 1 with wmic.exe or Invoke-WmiMethod
• PsExec / remote service creation patterns — EventCode 7045 with random service name
• Remote registry connections to unusual hosts
• SSH key reuse — one private key authenticating to many hosts in a short window
• AWS / GCP AssumeRole chains across accounts — pivot detection

Collection / staging / exfil

• Large-volume reads from cloud storage by single principal — unusual S3 / GCS access patterns
• Archive creation patterns — Compress-Archive, 7z.exe, tar, zip operating on directories outside user home
• DNS queries to recently-registered domains — exfil over DNS or C2 beacon resolution
• Outbound TLS to high-risk geographies — depends on your organization's normal pattern
• Beaconing patterns — regular-interval connections (every N seconds ± jitter) to the same destination over hours

Cloud-specific

• IAM credential exfiltration patterns — GetCredentialReport, GenerateCredentialReport from unusual principals
• IMDS access from unusual processes / containers — anything reaching 169.254.169.254 that isn't the cloud SDK
• CloudTrail / Audit Log tampering attempts — StopLogging, DeleteTrail, log-bucket access from non-logging principals
• Cross-region resource creation by single principal in short window — pivot or coin-mining setup

Identity-provider-specific

• OAuth app grants of high-scope permissions (Google Workspace, M365) — adversary technique for persistence outside the user's password
• MFA method enrollment from new device — attacker registering their own MFA after stealing a session
• Sign-ins from impossible geographies — geolocation jumps that exceed travel time
• Service-account authentication from new client / new IP — service accounts should be predictable

Tools

• SIEM — Splunk, Sentinel, Elastic, Chronicle, Sumo, Wazuh
• EDR — CrowdStrike (RTR), SentinelOne (deep visibility), Microsoft Defender (advanced hunting), Carbon Black
• Sysmon — open-source endpoint logging on Windows, output to SIEM
• osquery — SQL queries over endpoint state (cross-platform)
• Velociraptor — open-source live response and hunting framework (much more capable than free EDR)
• Zeek — network metadata for traffic analysis
• MITRE ATT&CK Navigator — coverage visualization
• Hunt-Evil — hunting playbook content (open-source)
• MaxMind GeoIP — geolocation lookup for IP-based hunts

Output Format

# Threat Hunt Report
## Hunt name: [descriptive — e.g., "Office process → encoded PowerShell"]
## Hypothesis: [specific, testable, bounded]
## Date range: [from - to]
## Hunter: [name]

### Methodology
- ATT&CK technique(s): [TXXXX.NNN]
- Data sources queried: [list]
- Query / queries:
  [the actual SIEM query]

### Findings
| Hit ID | Host / User / Resource | Outcome | Notes |
|--------|------------------------|---------|-------|

### Conclusion
- [Confirmed malicious / All benign / Inconclusive]
- [Confidence level — Low / Medium / High]

### Artifacts produced
- [ ] Detection rule added (link)
- [ ] Coverage gap documented (link)
- [ ] Negative-result documentation filed (link)

### Recommended follow-up
[Anything that needs deeper investigation, escalation, or future hunts]

Boundaries

• Hunt only environments the user has authorization for
• Never query SIEM / EDR data outside the user's authority — even if the dataset is available, scope matters
• For confirmed-malicious findings, escalate to incident-triage immediately — do not continue hunting and risk tipping the adversary
• Live response actions (host isolation, account disablement) are incident response, not hunting — escalate
• Refuse to use threat-hunting techniques to surveil employees beyond what HR / legal has authorized
• Negative hunt results are valuable evidence, not failure — document and credit accordingly

References

• PEAK Threat Hunting Framework (Splunk SURGe)
• TaHiTI (Targeted Hunting integrating Threat Intelligence) — Dutch model
• MITRE ATT&CK
• "The ThreatHunter Playbook" (Cyb3rWard0g) — open-source content
• Sigma rules repo — many rules can become hunt queries
• "Practical Threat Intelligence and Data-Driven Threat Hunting" — Valentina Costa-Gazcón
• David Bianco's "Pyramid of Pain" — IOC value hierarchy
• SANS FOR508 / FOR578 course materials
• Velociraptor community hunt content