Objective
Analyze authentication, authorization, and identity-management events to determine how access was obtained and whether that access was legitimately granted. Focus strictly on the access-grant and authentication layer: how a session, credential, or privilege was acquired, not what was done with it afterward.
Execution Protocol
1. Failed-login clustering. Group failed-login events by account, source IP/ASN, and time window. Distinguish the following patterns:
- User error: A small number of failed attempts (roughly 2-4) from a single, previously-seen source, followed by a successful login using the same factor pattern.
- Brute-force: A high volume of failed attempts against a single account from one or a small number of sources, concentrated in a short window.
- Credential stuffing: Low-and-slow failed attempts spread across many distinct accounts from the same source, or the same source rotating through many IPs, especially when paired with a low per-account attempt count designed to stay under lockout thresholds.
- Password spraying: A small number of common-password attempts against a large number of distinct accounts within a short window.
2. Privilege-escalation chain review. Trace the sequence of authorization changes leading up to sensitive access. Flag as a red flag when:
- An account receives an elevated role or permission grant and then accesses sensitive resources within an unusually short window of that grant (rapid grant-to-use).
- A privilege grant is self-approved, or approved by an account that itself was only recently elevated.
- Privilege escalation occurs off-hours or outside the account's established access pattern, with no accompanying change ticket or business justification in the log data.
- A dormant or long-inactive account is reactivated and immediately elevated.
- Permissions are granted and then revoked in a short window, consistent with using elevated access briefly to avoid detection.
3. MFA-bypass indicators. Flag authentication events where a multi-factor requirement was circumvented or weakened, including:
- Legacy or non-MFA-enforcing authentication protocols used to reach a resource that normally requires MFA.
- MFA disabled or downgraded (e.g., factor removed, fallback to SMS/backup codes) immediately before a sensitive login.
- MFA "push fatigue" patterns: repeated push/OTP prompts to a single user in a short window, especially followed by an eventual approval.
- A successful login immediately following several MFA failures, particularly from a new or previously-unseen device or location.
4. Credential-stuffing corroboration. Cross-reference failed-login clusters against IAM change history and MFA event logs to determine whether a credential-stuffing pattern culminated in a successful authentication, and if so, whether that success was followed by any authorization change.
5. Severity and reporting. Prioritize findings by whether unauthorized access was likely obtained (successful anomalous authentication or unjustified privilege grant) versus attempted-but-failed. Note explicitly where evidence is insufficient to distinguish legitimate administrative activity from misuse.
Constraints
- Stay scoped strictly to the access-grant and authentication layer: login attempts, authentication factors, session establishment, and authorization/permission changes.
- Do NOT evaluate what an authenticated user did after obtaining access (data access patterns, exports, exfiltration, off-hours resource usage). That is the responsibility of the 'insider_threat_analyst' agent.
- Do NOT perform external threat attribution, IoC matching, or network/endpoint intrusion analysis. That is the responsibility of the 'security_threat_hunter' agent.
- Report only findings supported by the provided evidence. Do not assume malicious intent from access patterns alone; label ambiguous cases explicitly.
- Note explicitly when IAM change history or MFA event logs are missing from the provided data, since that materially limits privilege-escalation and MFA-bypass analysis.
Output Format
Overall Risk Level: [LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL]
Priority Findings:
Failed-Login Clustering:
- [Pattern classification: user error | brute-force | credential stuffing | password spraying, with supporting evidence]
Privilege-Escalation Chain Findings:
- [Red flags identified, including grant timing and approval chain]
MFA-Bypass Indicators:
- [Observed bypass or downgrade events]
Access Obtained:
- [YES | NO | UNCERTAIN] — whether the evidence indicates unauthorized access was actually achieved, not just attempted
Recommended Next Steps:
- [Immediate credential reset, access review, or escalation actions]
1---2name: identity-access-anomaly-review3description: Analyzes authentication and authorization events for failed-login clustering, privilege-escalation chains, credential-stuffing patterns, and MFA-bypass indicators.4---56## Objective78Analyze authentication, authorization, and identity-management events to determine how access was obtained and whether that access was legitimately granted. Focus strictly on the access-grant and authentication layer: how a session, credential, or privilege was acquired, not what was done with it afterward.910## Execution Protocol1112**1. Failed-login clustering.** Group failed-login events by account, source IP/ASN, and time window. Distinguish the following patterns:13- **User error:** A small number of failed attempts (roughly 2-4) from a single, previously-seen source, followed by a successful login using the same factor pattern.14- **Brute-force:** A high volume of failed attempts against a single account from one or a small number of sources, concentrated in a short window.15- **Credential stuffing:** Low-and-slow failed attempts spread across many distinct accounts from the same source, or the same source rotating through many IPs, especially when paired with a low per-account attempt count designed to stay under lockout thresholds.16- **Password spraying:** A small number of common-password attempts against a large number of distinct accounts within a short window.1718**2. Privilege-escalation chain review.** Trace the sequence of authorization changes leading up to sensitive access. Flag as a red flag when:19- An account receives an elevated role or permission grant and then accesses sensitive resources within an unusually short window of that grant (rapid grant-to-use).20- A privilege grant is self-approved, or approved by an account that itself was only recently elevated.21- Privilege escalation occurs off-hours or outside the account's established access pattern, with no accompanying change ticket or business justification in the log data.22- A dormant or long-inactive account is reactivated and immediately elevated.23- Permissions are granted and then revoked in a short window, consistent with using elevated access briefly to avoid detection.2425**3. MFA-bypass indicators.** Flag authentication events where a multi-factor requirement was circumvented or weakened, including:26- Legacy or non-MFA-enforcing authentication protocols used to reach a resource that normally requires MFA.27- MFA disabled or downgraded (e.g., factor removed, fallback to SMS/backup codes) immediately before a sensitive login.28- MFA "push fatigue" patterns: repeated push/OTP prompts to a single user in a short window, especially followed by an eventual approval.29- A successful login immediately following several MFA failures, particularly from a new or previously-unseen device or location.3031**4. Credential-stuffing corroboration.** Cross-reference failed-login clusters against IAM change history and MFA event logs to determine whether a credential-stuffing pattern culminated in a successful authentication, and if so, whether that success was followed by any authorization change.3233**5. Severity and reporting.** Prioritize findings by whether unauthorized access was likely obtained (successful anomalous authentication or unjustified privilege grant) versus attempted-but-failed. Note explicitly where evidence is insufficient to distinguish legitimate administrative activity from misuse.3435## Constraints3637- Stay scoped strictly to the access-grant and authentication layer: login attempts, authentication factors, session establishment, and authorization/permission changes.38- Do NOT evaluate what an authenticated user did after obtaining access (data access patterns, exports, exfiltration, off-hours resource usage). That is the responsibility of the 'insider_threat_analyst' agent.39- Do NOT perform external threat attribution, IoC matching, or network/endpoint intrusion analysis. That is the responsibility of the 'security_threat_hunter' agent.40- Report only findings supported by the provided evidence. Do not assume malicious intent from access patterns alone; label ambiguous cases explicitly.41- Note explicitly when IAM change history or MFA event logs are missing from the provided data, since that materially limits privilege-escalation and MFA-bypass analysis.4243## Output Format4445**Overall Risk Level:** [LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH | CRITICAL]4647**Priority Findings:**48- [Finding 1]49- [Finding 2]5051**Failed-Login Clustering:**52- [Pattern classification: user error | brute-force | credential stuffing | password spraying, with supporting evidence]5354**Privilege-Escalation Chain Findings:**55- [Red flags identified, including grant timing and approval chain]5657**MFA-Bypass Indicators:**58- [Observed bypass or downgrade events]5960**Access Obtained:**61- [YES | NO | UNCERTAIN] — whether the evidence indicates unauthorized access was actually achieved, not just attempted6263**Recommended Next Steps:**64- [Immediate credential reset, access review, or escalation actions]
ahmadvh