In my experience as a consultant step 1 is interviewing client & reviewing whatever scattered notes 🔖📝they have about an incident & organizing it in a logical manner b/c most orgs do this poorly 🙈
This leads to scattered knowledge/understanding & each analyst documenting things in their own way that is efficient for them but not overall investigation
One table for each of the following:
-Timeline of forensic artifacts
-Systems
-Indicators (I prefer separate table for host and network)
-Compromised accounts
-Timestamp (UTC time in ISO 8601 format 2020-07-20T13:27:36Z)
-Forensic artifact description (e.g MFT Created)
-System
-Summary (normalized field w/most important data)
-User account
-Hash
-Attribution
-Comment
Gives chronological view of entire incident
-Hostname
-IP
-OS
-Date added
-System status
-Investigative lead
-Multiple fields to track forensic acquisition status & date, analyst assigned, analysis status, remediation status/date
-Infected (actor deployed malware that would enable them to regain access [backdoor, webshell...etc])
-Accessed
-Compromised (superset of infected & accessed systems)
-TBD (needs further analysis)
Only put system in category when solid evidence
Example: netflow data of actor IP connecting to system isn’t “proof” of access
-Indicator description (File name, IP address...etc)
-Indicator detail
-System identified on (at least one - doesn’t have to be all)
-Attribution
-Relations (for IPs track hashes and vice versa & filenames track hashes)
-Date added
-Comment
-earliest evidence of compromise
-most recent evidence of activity
-# compomised systems (with breakdown of infected vs. accessed)
-# of systems requiring analysis
You’re role as an investigative lead is like a point guard in basketball. You run offense but rest of team does bulk of the scoring. You need complete mastery of technical details - but you aren’t the one generating the findings