Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Detect RDP brute force attacks by analyzing Windows Security Event Logs for failed authentication patterns (Event ID 4625), successful logons after failures (Event ID 4624), NLA failures, and source IP frequency analysis.
.claude/skills/detecting-rdp-brute-force-attacks/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-19 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | — | — |
| case-07 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-05 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-11 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
RDP brute force attacks target Windows Remote Desktop Protocol services by attempting rapid credential guessing against exposed RDP endpoints. Detection relies on analyzing Windows Security Event Logs for Event ID 4625 (failed logon with Logon Type 10 or 3) and correlating with Event ID 4624 (successful logon) to identify compromised accounts. This skill covers parsing EVTX files with python-evtx, identifying attack patterns through source IP frequency analysis, detecting NLA bypass attempts, and generating actionable detection reports.
python-evtx, lxml librariesExport Windows Security logs to EVTX format using Event Viewer or wevtutil:
wevtutil epl Security C:\logs\security.evtxUse python-evtx to parse Event ID 4625 entries, extracting source IP, target username, failure reason (Sub Status), and Logon Type fields.
Identify brute force patterns by:
Produce a JSON report with top attacking IPs, targeted accounts, time-based analysis, and compromise indicators.
JSON report containing:
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | 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. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of 0 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
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.