Implementing Soar Playbook For Phishing

Implementing SOAR Playbook for Phishing

Overview

This skill implements a phishing incident response workflow using the Splunk SOAR (formerly Phantom) REST API. When a suspected phishing email is reported, the agent parses email headers and body, creates a SOAR container representing the incident, attaches artifacts containing indicators of compromise (sender address, URLs, IP addresses, file hashes), triggers an automated investigation playbook, and polls for action results.

Splunk SOAR orchestrates and automates security operations through playbooks that chain together investigative and response actions. The REST API at /rest/container, /rest/artifact, and /rest/playbook_run enables programmatic incident creation and automation triggering from external tools, email gateways, and SIEM alerts.

When to Use

Trigger phrases:

• "implementing soar playbook for phishing"

• "Use when working with implementing soar playbook for phishing"

• When deploying or configuring implementing soar playbook for phishing capabilities in your environment

• When establishing security controls aligned to compliance requirements

• When building or improving security architecture for this domain

• When conducting security assessments that require this implementation

Prerequisites

• Python 3.9 or later with requests and email modules
• Splunk SOAR instance (Cloud or On-Premises) with REST API access
• SOAR API token with permissions to create containers and trigger playbooks
• Network connectivity to SOAR instance on port 443
• A configured phishing investigation playbook in SOAR

Steps

1. Parse the phishing email: Read the email file (.eml format) and extract headers including From, To, Subject, Reply-To, Return-Path, Received, Message-ID, X-Mailer, and authentication results (SPF, DKIM, DMARC). Extract URLs and IP addresses from the email body.

2. Authenticate to SOAR REST API: Use the API token in the ph-auth-token header to authenticate all REST API requests to the SOAR instance.

3. Create a container: POST to /rest/container with the incident label, name, description, severity, and status. The container represents the phishing incident and receives a container ID in the response.

4. Add email header artifacts: POST to /rest/artifact with container_id and CEF (Common Event Format) fields containing sender address (fromAddress), recipient (toAddress), subject, originating IP (sourceAddress), and Message-ID. Set run_automation to False for all but the last artifact.

5. Add URL artifacts: For each URL extracted from the email body, create an artifact with CEF field requestURL and type url. These artifacts feed into URL reputation checks in the playbook.

6. Trigger the playbook: POST to /rest/playbook_run with the playbook ID or name and the container ID. This initiates the automated investigation workflow.

7. Poll action results: GET /rest/action_run filtered by container ID to monitor playbook progress. Poll until all actions reach a terminal state (success, failed, or cancelled).

8. Compile response report: Aggregate playbook action results into a summary report with verdicts from URL reputation, domain reputation, IP geolocation, and email header analysis.

Expected Output

{
  "incident": {
    "container_id": 1542,
    "status": "new",
    "severity": "high",
    "artifacts_created": 5
  },
  "playbook": {
    "name": "phishing_investigate",
    "run_id": 892,
    "status": "success",
    "actions_completed": 8
  },
  "verdict": "malicious",
  "indicators": {
    "sender_domain_reputation": "malicious",
    "urls_flagged": 2,
    "spf_result": "fail",
    "dkim_result": "fail"
  }
}

When NOT to Use

• You need to test the implementation (use performing-* skills)
• Task is about configuring existing tools (use configuring-* skills)
• You need to analyze security events (use analyzing-* skills)
• Task is about building detection rules (use building-* skills)
• You don't have access to the target environment
• Task requires vendor-specific expertise (consult vendor docs)

Red Flags

• Performing actions without explicit written authorization from the asset owner
• Testing against production systems without a defined scope and rules of engagement
• Modifying cloud IAM policies or security groups without approval
• Exposing cloud credentials or secrets in logs or reports
• Running scans that generate excessive API calls and trigger billing alerts

Process

1. Reconnaissance — Gather target information, identify attack surface, enumerate services
2. Analysis/Exploitation — Execute the technique, analyze results, document findings
3. Reporting — Document IOCs, write findings, provide remediation recommendations

Verification

• All steps executed successfully against a test environment before production use
• Output documented with screenshots or logs demonstrating expected behavior
• Cloud resource changes reverted or documented as intentional
• IAM policies reviewed for least-privilege compliance after testing
• No residual test resources left running (cost and security check)

Anti-Rationalization Table