c2-hygiene — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited c2-hygiene (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Sandbox/lab-only and RoE-strict: this skill describes architecture and hygiene discipline for C2 infrastructure in red-team engagement context. Specific beacon configurations, malleable-profile strings for named C2 frameworks, or EDR-bypass recipes do not live here — those belong in a closed engagement vault. The skill provides architectural patterns, OPSEC checklists, and a detection perspective, all verifiable in a lab.
C2 (Command and Control) is the operational backbone of every red-team engagement or APT simulation: how you talk to placed implants without getting caught, and how you make the traffic realistic enough that detection tuning has something to bite on. This skill provides the architecture and hygiene lens, not framework-specific setup.
Triggers on:
detection-engineer provides the rule side.phishing-sim, web-exploit-triage, payload-crafter. This skill starts at "how does the implant keep talking".post-exploit, ad-attacks. C2 is the transport; those skills perform actions over it.detection-engineer, siem-query, purple-ops. This skill names detection opportunities; those skills build the rules.pentest-reporter.ioc-hunter.forensics-assist plus ir-runbook.Six phases. Phase 1 (architecture) and phase 4 (OPSEC discipline) are where C2 engagements fail or succeed.
An implant rarely talks directly to your teamserver — at least one redirector layer sits in between. Goal: shield the attack source, make traffic look legitimate, and reduce the cost of takedown.
Layers (from implant to operator):
Selection criteria for the front domain:
urlscan.io and threatintelligenceplatform.com checks before going live.Domain fronting: routing traffic through a CDN with an SNI/Host-header mismatch so it looks bound for one host but is steered to another. Since ~2018 this has been closed by the major providers (Google, AWS CloudFront, Microsoft Azure). Through 2022–2024 it has not been reproducible in most mainstream CDNs without violating vendor policy. The skill names it as historical context, not a recommended technique for 2026.
Alternatives to domain fronting:
Discipline: never pick a front whose policy explicitly says it must not be used for this. Not just an ethical issue — if the provider does a takedown you lose your infra mid-engagement.
Beacons are periodic check-ins from implant to teamserver. Two-axis discipline: how often and how regularly.
60s, 60s, 60s — a SIEM sees the regularity. With 30% jitter: 42s, 75s, 51s — less cyclic. Default: 25–50% jitter.Detection perspective per shaping choice:
C2 traffic in 2026 is almost always TLS-encrypted. Cert and domain discipline:
A bumper rail at every step in the C2 operation. The checklist mixes lagging and leading indicators.
Every C2 choice leaves a signal behind. Document per layer what the blue team could have seen.
| C2 choice | Detection opportunity |
|---|---|
| Front domain with low age | DNS newly-registered-domain detection (Cisco Umbrella, DomainTools) |
| Default tooling strings | YARA rules from EDR vendors |
| TLS JA3 fingerprint mismatch | Network monitoring with a JA3 allowlist |
| Beacon without jitter | Frequency analysis on outbound DNS/HTTP |
| Working hours not matching TZ | Time-of-day anomaly detection |
| Volume anomaly during staging | Baseline-vs-current outbound-bytes anomaly |
| Geographic anomaly of VPN exit | GeoIP-based UEBA |
Per engagement report, a table like this plus mapping to ATT&CK TA0011 sub-techniques (T1071-application-layer-protocol, T1090-proxy, T1573-encrypted-channel, T1568-dynamic-resolution, T1132-data-encoding).
Handoff to detection-engineer for concrete sigma/KQL rules.
Layer 1: scope (all C2 components within RoE? cleanup checklist complete?), assumptions (domain age and cert fingerprint actually checked before going live?), gaps (operator-side logging complete for reconstruction?). Layer 2: ATT&CK TA0011 sub-techniques correct, no invented JA3 strings or vendor-tool fingerprints, domain-fronting claims current (this technique shifts quickly; do not claim "still works on vendor X" without verification), OPSEC checklist not overstated.
C2 architecture — <engagement>
RoE: <which channels permitted, which working hours>
Goal: <stealthy / detection-validation / threat-emulation>
Architecture:
Front domain: <FQDN, age, categorization, cert issuer>
HTTP redirector: <hostname, infrastructure (cloud VM/container)>
DNS redirector: <NS delegation, subdomain>
Channels in use: <HTTP-S / DNS / DoH / webhook>
Teamserver location: <behind VPN/bastion, not directly internet-reachable>
Beacon config (lab-tested):
Sleep: <minutes-range>
Jitter: <%>
Staging: <yes/no, how many stages>
Working hours: <slot in target time zone>
Channel fallback: <order>
OPSEC checklist:
Operator-IP aging: <ok/finding>
DNS resolution: <target-side / operator-side leak: ok/finding>
Tooling fingerprint: <customized: ok/finding>
Cert fingerprint: <JA3/JA4 vs target baseline>
Domain categorization:<ok/finding>
Logging complete: <ok/finding>
Cleanup checklist: <prepared: ok/finding>
Detection opportunities (handoff to detection-engineer):
Per C2 choice: signal shape, log source, rule shape
ATT&CK mapping:
TA0011 sub-techniques in use: <T-IDs>
Cleanup status (post-engagement):
Domain registration expired/sold: <date>
TLS certs revoked: <ok>
Cloud resources deleted: <ok>
Logs to engagement vault: <ok>
Verification-loop: ...~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.