Ready to supercharge your AI agents?

Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.

Get Started Free →

T1567.001 Exfiltration to Code Repository · cyberstrikeus | DecimalAI

cyberstrikeus/T1567.001_exfiltration-to-code-repository

SkillScore82Maintained

Adversaries may exfiltrate data to a code repository rather than over their primary command and control channel.

Securityby cyberstrikeus

Links this skill to your agents and keeps it current with the author’s updates.

Automatic

Security & AppSec packmitre-attackenterpriset1567.001

1 · One-time — install the CLI (docs ↗)

pip install decimalai

2 · Get the skill — writes .claude/skills/cyberstrikeus-t1567-001-exfiltration-to-code-repository/SKILL.md

decimalai skills pull cyberstrikeus-t1567-001-exfiltration-to-code-repository --out .claude/skills/

No CLI? Get the same file — curl · raw file

curl -fsSL --create-dirs -o .claude/skills/cyberstrikeus-t1567-001-exfiltration-to-code-repository/SKILL.md https://app.decimal.ai/s/cyberstrikeus-t1567-001-exfiltration-to-code-repository/SKILL.md

Raw file: /s/cyberstrikeus-t1567-001-exfiltration-to-code-repository/SKILL.md ↗ · machine-readable summary at /s/cyberstrikeus-t1567-001-exfiltration-to-code-repository.json ↗

In productionGlobal

how this skill behaves on real traffic · last 30 days

No production data for this skill yet — usage numbers appear here once agents start running it.

Anonymized aggregate across every org using this skill — proof from real production use, not a demo.

Does this skill help? · Benchmark: with vs. withoutsign in to run this on your agents

22 test cases from the publisher’s eval.yaml · each run twice on gemini-3.6-flash — with the skill injected, then without · last run 23d ago

Yes — +18% lift+1% tokens0% turns82% of whole cases pass with skill (18/22)

Test case	Without → With	Effect	Δ tokens	Δ turns
case-10	✗→✓	▲ Improved	-1%	0%
case-14	✗→✓	▲ Improved	-47%	0%
case-15	✗→✓	▲ Improved	-67%	0%
case-17	✗→✓	▲ Improved	-76%	0%
case-21	✓→✓	＝ Same ✓	8%	0%

Showing 5 of 22 cases

SkillSafety

✓ 3 of 3 passed

Code scan15 of 15 checks clean

0 critical · 0 warning · 0 info — scanner v4 — 8/10/2026

live_secretremote_code_executionreverse_shelldata_exfiltrationssrf_metadataagent_snoopinganti_refusaldestructive_commandsobfuscated_unicodeunicode_homoglyphopaque_blobsuspicious_urltool_overreachtrigger_abuseprompt_injection_phrasing

IntentSafe

LLM judge · does the skill do what it claims

ContentClean

LLM judge · policy & harmful-content review

Source

Imported

cyberstrikeus / cyberstrike

.cyberstrike/skill/mitre_attack/TA0010_exfiltration/T1567.001_exfiltration-to-code-repository/SKILL.md

View on GitHub ↗

License AGPL-3.0Imported 9/2/2026Version v1

Skill contents

SKILL.md

T1567.001 Exfiltration to Code Repository

> Sub-technique of: T1567

High-Level Description

Adversaries may exfiltrate data to a code repository rather than over their primary command and control channel. Code repositories are often accessible via an API (ex: https://api.github.com). Access to these APIs are often over HTTPS, which gives the adversary an additional level of protection.

Exfiltration to a code repository can also provide a significant amount of cover to the adversary if it is a popular service already used by hosts within the network.

Kill Chain Phase

Exfiltration (TA0010)

Platforms: Linux, macOS, Windows, ESXi

What to Check

] Identify if Exfiltration to Code Repository technique is applicable to target environment
] Check Linux systems for indicators of Exfiltration to Code Repository
] Check macOS systems for indicators of Exfiltration to Code Repository
] Check Windows systems for indicators of Exfiltration to Code Repository
] Verify mitigations are bypassed or absent (1 known mitigations)
] Assess detection coverage (1 detection strategies)

How to Test

Manual Testing

Identify Attack Surface: Determine if the target environment is susceptible to Exfiltration to Code Repository by examining the target platforms (Linux, macOS, Windows).

Assess Existing Defenses: Review whether mitigations for T1567.001 are in place. If defenses are absent or misconfigured, this technique may be exploitable.

Execute Test: Use tools and methods described in the MITRE ATT&CK page and external references below.

> Note: No Atomic Red Team tests available for this technique. See Atomic Red Team GitHub for updates.

Remediation Guide

M1021 Restrict Web-Based Content

Web proxies can be used to enforce an external network communication policy that prevents use of unauthorized external services.

Detection

Detection Strategy for Exfiltration to Code Repository

Risk Assessment

| Finding | Severity | Impact | | ---------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ------------ | | Exfiltration to Code Repository technique applicable | Low | Exfiltration |

CWE Categories

| CWE ID | Title | | ------- | --------------------------------- | | CWE-200 | Exposure of Sensitive Information |

References

Illustrative Want to see what cyberstrikeus/T1567.001_exfiltration-to-code-repository would put in front of your model? Preview the rendered body and check its trigger phrases — no LLM call, no signup.

Latest benchmark · publisher runVerified

8/30/2026, 20:16 UTC · 22 cases

Lift

+18%

82% vs 64%

Agent turns

0%

1.0 vs 1.0

Tokens

+1%

2,417.18 vs 2,405.68

fail → pass · 4pass → pass · 14fail → fail · 4

Per-case results (22)

Case	Status	Duration (ms)			Turns			Tokens			Tool calls
Case	Status	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ	Without	With	Δ
case-21 How do we secure GitHub Actions CI/CD workflows against malicious pipeline modification under MITRE ATT&CK T1578 or build pipeline compromise?	pass→pass	37,656	28,778	-24%	1	1	0%	4,031	4,366	+8%	0	0	—
case-01 We are reviewing our network defenses against potential exfiltration tactics targeting cloud code hosting services. Could you provide a structured security evaluation guide covering OS verification checks, manual testing procedures, and severity classification for MITRE ATT&CK technique T1567.001?	fail→fail	32,104	42,734	+33%	1	1	0%	3,979	7,465	+88%	0	0	—
case-02 Our SOC team wants to audit suspicious outbound API traffic directed at external developer platforms across Linux and Windows systems. Can you generate an assessment checklist and remediation strategy to determine if sensitive data is being exfiltrated to code repositories?	fail→fail	28,153	33,155	+18%	1	1	0%	3,882	5,371	+38%	0	0	—
case-03 I need to prepare a threat assessment report on sub-technique T1567.001 (Exfiltration to Code Repository). Please detail the key evaluation steps for multi-platform environments, defensive proxy controls, and associated weakness categories.	fail→fail	33,101	41,850	+26%	1	1	0%	4,417	6,685	+51%	0	0	—
case-04 When auditing multi-platform hypervisors and endpoints for data movement to remote git services using MITRE ATT&CK T1567.001, which enterprise virtualized server platform must be included in the host platform checklist?	pass→pass	11,998	2,452	-80%	1	1	0%	1,723	1,025	-41%	0	0	—
case-05 An enterprise architecture team is designing web proxy filtering rules to block unauthorized outbound pushes to external software repositories under MITRE ATT&CK T1567.001. What specific MITRE mitigation ID governs restricting web-based content?	pass→pass	12,118	8,169	-33%	1	1	0%	1,362	1,121	-18%	0	0	—
case-06 What software weakness category ID is linked to data leakage via external code repositories in security risk evaluations for T1567.001?	pass→pass	17,887	3,262	-82%	1	1	0%	2,396	943	-61%	0	0	—
case-07 A risk management engine requires a severity designation for finding that exfiltration to code repositories is applicable in an environment. Should this finding be classified as Critical, High, Medium, or Low?	fail→fail	17,721	18,118	+2%	1	1	0%	1,923	2,566	+33%	0	0	—
case-08 In a standardized threat model report for sub-technique T1567.001, what specific impact category is assigned to the code repository exfiltration finding?	pass→pass	16,011	2,478	-85%	1	1	0%	1,624	943	-42%	0	0	—
case-09 Within the Cyber Kill Chain / MITRE ATT&CK tactical framework, what tactic ID is assigned to T1567.001?	pass→pass	4,775	2,458	-49%	1	1	0%	690	909	+32%	0	0	—
case-10 A red team operator is looking for automated execution scripts for T1567.001 in the Atomic Red Team repository. What is the current availability status of atomic tests for this specific sub-technique?	fail→pass	10,990	3,977	-64%	1	1	0%	985	974	-1%	0	0	—
case-11 When mapping security alerts to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, what is the parent technique ID for Exfiltration to Code Repository?	pass→pass	8,906	8,308	-7%	1	1	0%	603	887	+47%	0	0	—
case-12 What technical control mechanism should be deployed to enforce external network communication policies and restrict unauthorized web content access for T1567.001?	pass→pass	18,043	9,097	-50%	1	1	0%	2,094	1,999	-5%	0	0	—
case-13 List all four operating system and hypervisor platforms documented as applicable target environments for MITRE ATT&CK T1567.001.	pass→pass	23,433	6,863	-71%	1	1	0%	3,412	892	-74%	0	0	—
case-14 How many known MITRE ATT&CK mitigations are officially documented for sub-technique T1567.001?	fail→pass	14,065	2,542	-82%	1	1	0%	1,805	957	-47%	0	0	—
case-15 How many detection strategies are cataloged in the assessment framework for T1567.001?	fail→pass	21,140	2,009	-90%	1	1	0%	2,788	908	-67%	0	0	—
case-16 What transport layer protocol commonly used by code repository APIs provides encrypted communications that obscure exfiltration payloads from basic network monitoring?	pass→pass	13,362	4,560	-66%	1	1	0%	1,230	1,339	+9%	0	0	—
case-17 What is the official title of the Common Weakness Enumeration assigned to T1567.001?	fail→pass	25,136	6,609	-74%	1	1	0%	3,552	851	-76%	0	0	—
case-18 During manual security testing of T1567.001, what primary defensive configuration check should be performed after identifying the attack surface?	pass→pass	16,314	4,304	-74%	1	1	0%	1,825	1,394	-24%	0	0	—
case-19 Our team needs to evaluate exfiltration to cloud storage services like AWS S3 and Google Drive under MITRE ATT&CK T1567.002. What mitigation ID and detection strategies apply to this specific cloud storage sub-technique?	pass→pass	21,002	19,196	-9%	1	1	0%	2,886	4,010	+39%	0	0	—
case-20 We are investigating C2 communications over standard HTTPS channels under MITRE ATT&CK T1071.001. How should we configure network intrusion detection rules for custom C2 beaconing patterns?	pass→pass	24,540	27,651	+13%	1	1	0%	3,549	4,794	+35%	0	0	—
case-22 When evaluating SOC telemetry for code repository exfiltration, what primary network endpoint activity should be monitored against public API endpoints?	pass→pass	18,920	19,496	+3%	1	1	0%	2,169	2,779	+28%	0	0	—

These cases were also screened by the skill’s intent / safety pass.See the Trust review ↗Reproduce this benchmark in Colab ↗

How this skill was measured

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. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +18 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.

Model measured: gemini-3.6-flash
Graded by: gemini-3.6-flash
Grading method: judged
Verification: verified
Pass rate without the skill: 63.6%
Pass rate with the skill: 81.8%
Cases attempted: 22
Cases counted toward lift: 22
Cases that regressed: 0
Skill version measured: v1
Run completed: 8/30/2026, 20:16 UTC

Measured example — same prompt, with vs. without the skill · from the benchmark run · case case-10

Prompt

A red team operator is looking for automated execution scripts for T1567.001 in the Atomic Red Team repository. What is the current availability status of atomic tests for this specific sub-technique?

Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.

Show both answers

SkillScore blends 4 signals1 of 4 complete

BenchmarkPass rate WITH skill on a verified run82

Live evalNeeds ≥10 evaluated traces in 30 days

AI ratingNeeds ≥10 rated traces

AdoptionNeeds ≥10 serves across ≥2 orgs in 30 days

Efficiency · separate axis (at equal correctness)+0% turns-7% tokens

Shown for transparency; not credited unless a verified run shows no correctness regression.

Backed by 1 of 4 signals — each added signal makes the score more robust.

Verified on gemini-3.6-flash · re-tested 23 days ago

Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.