Use when detect PowerShell Empire framework artifacts in Windows event
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add oyi77/1ai-skills --skill analyzing-powershell-empire-artifacts --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Analyzing Powershell Empire Artifacts?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/oyi77-analyzing-powershell-empire-artifacts)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: analyzing-powershell-empire-artifacts
description: Use when detect PowerShell Empire framework artifacts in Windows event
logs by identifying Base64 encoded launcher patterns, default user agents, staging
URL structures, stager IOCs, and known Empire module signatures in Script Block
Logging events. Use when detecting powershell empire framework artifacts in windows
event logs by.
domain: cybersecurity
subdomain: threat-hunting
tags:
- PowerShell-Empire
- threat-hunting
- Script-Block-Logging
- base64
- stager
- C2
- MITRE-ATT&CK
- T1059.001
- forensics
version: '1.0'
author: oyi77
license: Apache-2.0
d3fend_techniques:
- Executable Denylisting
- Execution Isolation
- File Metadata Consistency Validation
- Content Format Conversion
- File Content Analysis
nist_ai_rmf:
- GOVERN-1.1
- MEASURE-2.7
- MANAGE-3.1
nist_csf:
- DE.CM-01
- DE.AE-02
- DE.AE-07
- ID.RA-05
category: cybersecurity
---
# Analyzing PowerShell Empire Artifacts
## Overview
PowerShell Empire is a post-exploitation framework consisting of listeners, stagers, and agents. Its artifacts leave detectable traces in Windows event logs, particularly PowerShell Script Block Logging (Event ID 4104) and Module Logging (Event ID 4103). This skill analyzes event logs for Empire's default launcher string (`powershell -noP -sta -w 1 -enc`), Base64 encoded payloads containing `System.Net.WebClient` and `FromBase64String`, known module invocations (Invoke-Mimikatz, Invoke-Kerberoast, Invoke-TokenManipulation), and staging URL patterns.
## When to Use
**Trigger phrases:**
- "analyzing powershell empire artifacts"
- "Detect PowerShell Empire framework artifacts in Windows event logs by identifyin"
- When investigating security incidents that require analyzing powershell empire artifacts
- When building detection rules or threat hunting queries for this domain
- When SOC analysts need structured procedures for this analysis type
- When validating security monitoring coverage for related attack techniques
## Prerequisites
- Python 3.9+ with access to Windows Event Log or exported EVTX files
- PowerShell Script Block Logging (Event ID 4104) enabled via Group Policy
- Module Logging (Event ID 4103) enabled for comprehensive coverage
## Key Detection Patterns
1. **Default launcher** — `powershell -noP -sta -w 1 -enc` followed by Base64 blob
2. **Stager indicators** — `System.Net.WebClient`, `DownloadData`, `DownloadString`, `FromBase64String`
3. **Module signatures** — Invoke-Mimikatz, Invoke-Kerberoast, Invoke-TokenManipulation, Invoke-PSInject, Invoke-DCOM
4. **User agent strings** — default Empire user agents in HTTP listener configuration
5. **Staging URLs** — `/login/process.php`, `/admin/get.php` and similar default URI patterns
## When NOT to Use
- You need to perform the attack, not analyze it (use performing-* skills)
- Task is about detection, not analysis (use detecting-* skills)
- You need to implement controls (use implementing-* skills)
- Task is about threat hunting, not post-incident analysis (use hunting-* skills)
- You don't have access to the artifacts/logs to analyze
- Task requires real-time monitoring (use SOC tools)
## Red Flags
- Performing actions without explicit written authorization from the asset owner
- Testing against production systems without a defined scope and rules of engagement
- Exceeding the authorized scope of the engagement
- Leaving persistent access mechanisms without explicit approval
- Causing denial-of-service on production systems during testing
## Verification
- All steps executed successfully against a test environment before production use
- Output documented with screenshots or logs demonstrating expected behavior
- Results validated against known-good baselines or reference implementations
- Documentation complete enough for another analyst to reproduce findings
## Output
JSON report with matched IOCs, decoded Base64 payloads, timeline of suspicious events, MITRE ATT&CK technique mappings, and severity scores.
## Process
```python
# Example: IOC detection
import re
IOC_PATTERNS = {
"ip": r"\b(?:\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}\b",
"domain": r"\b[a-z0-9-]+\.[a-z]{2,}\b",
"hash_md5": r"\b[a-f0-9]{32}\b",
"hash_sha256": r"\b[a-f0-9]{64}\b",
}
def extract_iocs(text: str) -> dict:
return {k: re.findall(v, text) for k, v in IOC_PATTERNS.items()}
```
1. Analyze the task requirements
2. Apply domain expertise
3. Verify output quality
## Anti-Rationalization Table
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "We are too small to be targeted" | Automated attacks target everyone. Size does not matter. |
| "Security slows us down" | A breach slows you down 100x more. Build security in from the start. |
| "We will fix it after launch" | Vulnerabilities in production are exploited within hours. Fix before deploy. |Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!