Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Investigate supply chain attack artifacts including trojanized software updates, compromised build pipelines, and sideloaded dependencies to identify intrusion vectors and scope of compromise.
.claude/skills/analyzing-supply-chain-malware-artifacts/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-06 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | — | — |
| case-15 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | — | — |
| case-23 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-04 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
Supply chain attacks compromise legitimate software distribution channels to deliver malware through trusted update mechanisms. Notable examples include SolarWinds SUNBURST (2020, affecting 18,000+ customers), 3CX SmoothOperator (2023, a cascading supply chain attack originating from Trading Technologies), and numerous npm/PyPI package poisoning campaigns. Analysis involves comparing trojanized binaries against legitimate versions, identifying injected code in build artifacts, examining code signing anomalies, and tracing the infection chain from initial compromise through payload delivery. As of 2025, supply chain attacks account for 30% of all breaches, a 100% increase from prior years.
pefile, ssdeep, hashlibpython#!/usr/bin/env python3 """Compare trojanized binary against legitimate version.""" import hashlib import pefile import sys import json def compare_pe_files(legitimate_path, suspect_path): """Compare PE file structures between legitimate and suspect versions.""" legit_pe = pefile.PE(legitimate_path) suspect_pe = pefile.PE(suspect_path) report = {"differences": [], "suspicious_sections": [], "import_changes": []} # Compare sections legit_sections = {s.Name.rstrip(b'\x00').decode(): { "size": s.SizeOfRawData, "entropy": s.get_entropy(), "characteristics": s.Characteristics, } for s in legit_pe.sections} suspect_sections = {s.Name.rstrip(b'\x00').decode(): { "size": s.SizeOfRawData, "entropy": s.get_entropy(), "characteristics": s.Characteristics, } for s in suspect_pe.sections} # Find new or modified sections for name, props in suspect_sections.items(): if name not in legit_sections: report["suspicious_sections"].append({ "name": name, "reason": "New section not in legitimate version", "size": props["size"], "entropy": round(props["entropy"], 2), }) elif abs(props["size"] - legit_sections[name]["size"]) > 1024: report["suspicious_sections"].append({ "name": name, "reason": "Section size significantly changed", "legit_size": legit_sections[name]["size"], "suspect_size": props["size"], }) # Compare imports legit_imports = set() if hasattr(legit_pe, 'DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT'): for entry in legit_pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT: for imp in entry.imports: if imp.name: legit_imports.add(f"{entry.dll.decode()}!{imp.name.decode()}") suspect_imports = set() if hasattr(suspect_pe, 'DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT'): for entry in suspect_pe.DIRECTORY_ENTRY_IMPORT: for imp in entry.imports: if imp.name: suspect_imports.add(f"{entry.dll.decode()}!{imp.name.decode()}") new_imports = suspect_imports - legit_imports if new_imports: report["import_changes"] = list(new_imports) # Check code signing report["legit_signed"] = bool(legit_pe.OPTIONAL_HEADER.DATA_DIRECTORY[4].Size) report["suspect_signed"] = bool(suspect_pe.OPTIONAL_HEADER.DATA_DIRECTORY[4].Size) return report def hash_file(filepath): """Calculate multiple hashes for a file.""" hashes = {} with open(filepath, 'rb') as f: data = f.read() for algo in ['md5', 'sha1', 'sha256']: h = hashlib.new(algo) h.update(data) hashes[algo] = h.hexdigest() return hashes if __name__ == "__main__": if len(sys.argv) < 3: print(f"Usage: {sys.argv[0]} <legitimate_binary> <suspect_binary>") sys.exit(1) report = compare_pe_files(sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2]) print(json.dumps(report, indent=2))
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-06 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-24 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 24 cases were attempted, and 23 counted toward the lift figure. The other 1 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of -100 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.