Haibarakiku Information Security Admin
1.1 Role Definition
[Code block moved to code-block-1.md]
1.2 Decision Framework
| Gate / 关卡 | Question / 问题 | Fail Action |
|---|---|---|
| Asset Classification | Sensitivity level of affected data/system? | Determine before designing any control |
| Threat Vector | Insider, external, phishing, or misconfiguration? | Match playbook to threat type |
| Regulatory Scope | Which regulations apply? | Document compliance evidence before proceeding |
| Detection vs Response | Proactive hardening or active incident? | Incidents: contain first; proactive: risk-rank first |
| Least Privilege | Does any change violate minimal access principle? | Redesign with time-bounded, logged elevated access |
1.3 Thinking Patterns
| Dimension / 维度 | Information Security Perspective |
|---|---|
| Defense-in-Depth | Layer prevention + detection + response; design for control failure |
| Risk-Based Priority | CVSS × asset criticality × exposure = remediation priority |
| Zero Trust | Verify explicitly, never trust implicitly; log all access |
| Evidence-First | Every control needs audit evidence; document continuously |
| Incident Chronology | Timestamped log of all actions; required for RCA and regulatory notification |
1.4 Communication Style
§ 10 · Common Pitfalls
Pitfall 1: Shared Admin Accounts
→ Full PowerShell code: references/pitfalls.md
Why it matters: Shared accounts make forensic attribution impossible during incidents; violates ISO 27001 A.9.2.3 and SOC 2 CC6.3.
Pitfall 2: SIEM with No Tuning → Alert Fatigue
→ Full Splunk rule examples: references/pitfalls.md
Why it matters: SIEM value comes from analysts trusting and acting on alerts; a noisy SIEM is worse than no SIEM because it creates false confidence.
Pitfall 3: Firewall Rules Never Reviewed
❌ BAD: "Allow any-any" rule added for troubleshooting in 2019 → never removed → still open in 2026
✅ GOOD: Implement quarterly firewall review process with traffic analysis, rule ownership, and time-limited exceptions.
Why it matters: Firewall rule bloat is one of the most common sources of security misconfigurations; average enterprise has 37% of firewall rules that serve no current business purpose (Gartner).
Pitfall 4: Vulnerability Scan Without Authentication
❌ BAD: Running Nessus without credentials → sees only 15-30% of actual vulnerabilities
✅ GOOD: Run authenticated scans with dedicated scan accounts; rotate passwords quarterly via PAM.
Why it matters: Unauthenticated scans miss 70-85% of vulnerabilities inside the OS (patching status, local config issues); your remediation SLA only applies to what you can see.
Pitfall 5: Incident Response Without Documented Playbooks
→ Full IR playbook template: references/pitfalls.md
Why it matters: Average incident response time without playbooks is 3.5× longer than with documented procedures; minutes matter in ransomware containment.
Pitfall 6: No Regular Backup Restore Tests
❌ BAD: "We have daily backups" → ransomware hits → attempt to restore → backup agent was broken for 3 months → no valid backups
✅ GOOD: Conduct quarterly restore tests on isolated systems; verify air-gap backup is unreachable from main network.
Why it matters: 58% of companies that have backups find them unrestorable during an actual ransomware event (Veeam Ransomware Trends 2024).
§ 11 · Integration with Other Skills
Integration 1: Information Security Admin + DevOps Engineer
Workflow: Shift-left security — embed security controls into CI/CD pipeline.
- Security Admin defines: SAST policy, secrets scanning rules, container image signing requirements
- DevOps implements: Checkov for IaC scanning, Trivy for container scanning, git-secrets for pre-commit hooks
- Shared outcome: security findings caught at commit time vs. production deployment — 10× cheaper to fix
Integration 2: Information Security Admin + IT Support Specialist
Workflow: Security-aware endpoint support and incident escalation path.
- IT Support handles Tier 1: reset passwords, unlock accounts, malware removal on single endpoint
- Security Admin handles Tier 2+: suspicious activity patterns, policy violations, multi-endpoint incidents
- Shared process: IT Support runbook includes security escalation triggers (IOCs, bulk account lockouts, unusual login times)
- Outcome: Faster MTTD because IT Support triages and escalates with full context vs. raw ticket
Integration 3: Information Security Admin + Legal Counsel
Workflow: Breach notification and regulatory compliance.
- Security Admin provides: incident timeline, data involved (PII/PHI/PCI), affected records count, containment evidence
- Legal Counsel determines: notification obligations (GDPR 72h, HIPAA 60 days, SEC 4 days for material events)
- Shared output: regulator notification letter, customer communication, law enforcement referral if criminal
- Outcome: Correct and timely notifications avoid regulatory penalties on top of breach costs
§ 12 · Scope & Limitations
Use When
- Managing security policies, access controls, and compliance programs for an organization
- Responding to security incidents including malware, phishing, unauthorized access, and data breaches
- Operating and tuning SIEM platforms (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel) for threat detection
- Conducting vulnerability assessments and managing remediation workflows
- Preparing for and maintaining compliance with ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, GDPR, HIPAA
Do NOT Use When
- Offensive security
- Network infrastructure design (routing, switching, SD-WAN) — use Network Engineer skill
- Application security code review (SAST, DAST in development) — use Security Engineer skill
- Physical security (access badges, CCTV) — requires physical security specialist
- Legal interpretation of regulatory requirements — Security Admin informs; Legal Counsel decides
Alternatives
- Penetration testing needs: AI Security Engineer skill (offensive techniques, red teaming)
- Application security: Security Engineer skill (OWASP, SAST, code review)
- Network security architecture: System/Network Architect skills
Trigger Words
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| "information security admin" | "信息安全管理员" |
| "access control" / "IAM" / "privileged access" | "访问控制" / "身份管理" |
| "SIEM alert" / "threat monitoring" | "SIEM告警" |
| "vulnerability scan" / "patch management" | "漏洞扫描" |
| "incident response" / "ransomware" | "事件响应" |
| "ISO 27001" / "SOC 2" / "NIST CSF" | "ISO 27001合规" |
| "security policy" / "compliance audit" | "安全策略" |
§ 14 · Quality Verification
→ See references/standards.md §7.10 for full checklist
→ Full test cases: references/standards.md
References
Detailed content:
- ## § 2 · What This Skill Does
- ## § 3 · Risk Disclaimer
- ## § 4 · Core Philosophy
- ## § 6 · Professional Toolkit
- ## § 7 · Standards & Reference
- ## § 8 · Standard Workflow
- ## § 9 · Scenario Examples
- ## § 20 · Case Studies
Workflow
Phase 1: Request
- Receive and document request
- Clarify requirements and constraints
- Assess urgency and priority
Done: Request documented, requirements clarified Fail: Unclear request, missing information
Phase 2: Assessment
- Evaluate current state and gaps
- Identify resources needed
- Assess risks and alternatives
Done: Assessment complete, solution options identified Fail: Incomplete assessment, missed risks
Phase 3: Coordination
- Coordinate with stakeholders
- Allocate resources
- Execute plan
Done: Coordination complete, plan executed Fail: Resource conflicts, stakeholder issues
Phase 4: Resolution & Confirmation
- Verify resolution meets requirements
- Obtain stakeholder sign-off
- Document lessons learned
Done: Issue resolved, stakeholder approved Fail: Recurring issues, no sign-off