Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Detects ransomware encryption activity in real time using entropy analysis, file system I/O monitoring, and behavioral heuristics. Identifies mass file modification patterns, abnormal entropy spikes in written data, and suspicious process behavior characteristic of ransomware encryption routines. Activates for requests involving ransomware behavioral detection, entropy-based file monitoring, I/O anomaly detection, or real-time encryption activity alerting.
.claude/skills/detecting-ransomware-encryption-behavior/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-14 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Do not use entropy analysis alone as the only detection signal. Compressed files (ZIP, JPEG, MP4) naturally have high entropy and will cause false positives. Always combine entropy with behavioral signals like I/O rate and file rename patterns.
watchdog and psutil librariesCalculate normal entropy ranges for files in the environment:
Entropy Baselines by File Type:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
File Type Normal Entropy Encrypted Entropy
.docx 3.5 - 6.5 7.8 - 8.0
.xlsx 4.0 - 6.8 7.8 - 8.0
.pdf 5.0 - 7.2 7.8 - 8.0
.txt 2.0 - 5.0 7.8 - 8.0
.csv 2.0 - 5.5 7.8 - 8.0
.sql 2.5 - 5.0 7.8 - 8.0
.jpg/.png 7.0 - 7.9 7.9 - 8.0 (hard to distinguish)
.zip/.7z 7.5 - 8.0 7.9 - 8.0 (hard to distinguish)
Key insight: Text-based files show the largest entropy jump when encrypted,
making them the best candidates for entropy-based detection.Monitor file writes and calculate entropy of new content:
pythonimport math from collections import Counter def shannon_entropy(data): """Calculate Shannon entropy of byte data (0.0 to 8.0 scale).""" if not data: return 0.0 freq = Counter(data) length = len(data) return -sum((c / length) * math.log2(c / length) for c in freq.values()) def is_encryption_entropy(data, threshold=7.5): """Check if data entropy indicates encryption.""" entropy = shannon_entropy(data) return entropy >= threshold, entropy
Track process-level file operations for ransomware patterns:
Ransomware I/O Behavior Signatures:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
1. Rapid sequential file modification:
- >20 files modified per minute by single process
- Read original → Write encrypted → Rename with new extension
- Pattern: CreateFile → ReadFile → WriteFile → CloseHandle → MoveFile
2. File extension changes:
- Original: report.docx → Encrypted: report.docx.locked
- Many extensions changed within short time window
3. Ransom note creation:
- Same text file (README.txt, DECRYPT.html) created in multiple directories
- Created immediately after file encryption in each directory
4. Shadow copy deletion:
- vssadmin.exe delete shadows /all /quiet
- wmic.exe shadowcopy delete
- PowerShell: Get-WmiObject Win32_Shadowcopy | Remove-WmiObject
5. Entropy spike pattern:
- File read: entropy 3.5 (normal document)
- File write: entropy 7.9 (encrypted content)
- Delta > 3.0 is strong ransomware indicatorCombine multiple signals into a composite ransomware score:
pythondef calculate_ransomware_score(process_metrics): """Score process behavior for ransomware likelihood (0-100).""" score = 0 # High file modification rate files_per_min = process_metrics.get("files_modified_per_minute", 0) if files_per_min > 50: score += 30 elif files_per_min > 20: score += 15 # Entropy increase in written files avg_entropy_delta = process_metrics.get("avg_entropy_delta", 0) if avg_entropy_delta > 3.0: score += 30 elif avg_entropy_delta > 2.0: score += 15 # File extension changes extension_changes = process_metrics.get("extension_changes", 0) if extension_changes > 10: score += 20 elif extension_changes > 3: score += 10 # Ransom note creation if process_metrics.get("ransom_note_created", False): score += 20 return min(score, 100)
Set detection thresholds and automated containment actions:
Detection Thresholds:
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Score 0-25: INFORMATIONAL - Log only, no action
Score 25-50: LOW - Alert SOC for investigation
Score 50-75: HIGH - Alert SOC, suspend process, snapshot VM
Score 75-100: CRITICAL - Kill process, isolate endpoint, alert IR team
Automated Response Actions:
- Suspend/kill the encrypting process
- Disable network adapter to prevent lateral movement
- Create volume shadow copy snapshot before further damage
- Capture process memory dump for forensic analysis
- Send SIEM alert with process details, affected files, and timeline| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | Shannon Entropy | Mathematical measure of randomness in data (0-8 for bytes); encrypted data approaches 8.0, while text files are typically 2-5 | | Differential Entropy | The change in entropy between a file's original and modified content; a spike indicates encryption | | I/O Rate Anomaly | Abnormally high rate of file read/write operations by a single process, characteristic of bulk encryption | | Behavioral Scoring | Combining multiple weak signals (entropy, I/O rate, file renames) into a composite confidence score | | Entropy Evasion | Techniques used by advanced ransomware to defeat entropy detection, such as Base64 encoding output or partial encryption |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | 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. 23 cases were attempted, and 22 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 +26 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 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.