Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Adversaries may search private data from threat intelligence vendors for information that can be used during targeting.
.claude/skills/cyberstrikeus-t1597-001-threat-intel-vendors/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 41% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -11% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 26% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 88% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -27% | 0% |
> Sub-technique of: T1597
Adversaries may search private data from threat intelligence vendors for information that can be used during targeting. Threat intelligence vendors may offer paid feeds or portals that offer more data than what is publicly reported. Although sensitive details (such as customer names and other identifiers) may be redacted, this information may contain trends regarding breaches such as target industries, attribution claims, and successful TTPs/countermeasures.
Adversaries may search in private threat intelligence vendor data to gather actionable information. If a threat actor is searching for information on their own activities, that falls under Search Threat Vendor Data. Information reported by vendors may also reveal opportunities other forms of reconnaissance (ex: Search Open Websites/Domains), establishing operational resources (ex: Develop Capabilities or Obtain Capabilities), and/or initial access (ex: Exploit Public-Facing Application or External Remote Services).
Platforms: PRE
> Note: No Atomic Red Team tests available for this technique. See Atomic Red Team GitHub for updates.
This technique cannot be easily mitigated with preventive controls since it is based on behaviors performed outside of the scope of enterprise defenses and controls. Efforts should focus on minimizing the amount and sensitivity of data available to external parties.
| Finding | Severity | Impact | | ----------------------------------------- | -------- | -------------- | | Threat Intel Vendors technique applicable | High | Reconnaissance |
| CWE ID | Title | | ------- | --------------------------------- | | CWE-200 | Exposure of Sensitive Information |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 26,756 | 25,444 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,423 | 3,290 | -4% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 29,198 | 34,404 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,380 | 4,772 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 31,831 | 25,279 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,076 | 3,614 | -11% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 11,432 | 8,967 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,025 | 1,051 | +3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 11,311 | 9,109 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 980 | 1,231 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 16,972 | 9,309 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,838 | 1,431 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 18,080 | 19,851 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,669 | 3,137 | +88% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 20,314 | 11,043 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,992 | 1,455 | -27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 3,624 | 2,210 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 596 | 1,038 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 8,013 | 2,098 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 571 | 1,011 | +77% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 13,877 | 24,838 | +79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,947 | 3,192 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 19,039 | 12,806 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,690 | 1,867 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 21,198 | 16,325 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,673 | 2,643 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 25,098 | 7,121 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,798 | 1,045 | -63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 14,827 | 21,637 | +46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,261 | 3,150 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 17,254 | 8,120 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,389 | 1,202 | -13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 20,729 | 10,922 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,144 | 1,289 | -40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 19,439 | 7,324 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,212 | 994 | -55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 28,478 | 10,762 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,076 | 2,204 | -46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 19,849 | 20,901 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,725 | 2,794 | +3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | 17,183 | 15,037 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,263 | 2,664 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 10,573 | 10,539 | -0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,000 | 1,692 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
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 +45 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.