Cybrary ForgeCYBRARY / FORGE
Curriculum
H-620·Cross-platform·45 min

The Hyper-V cluster you inherited: measure it before you touch it Start this lab

Everything runs on one node, every machine has static memory sized by whoever asked loudest, and the volumes have a single path. The ticket says 'the VMs are slow' with no numbers attached. Measure the contention, name the cause, fix it, and measure again.

Mission brief · H-620

Tier 3 analyst on the incident response bench

Tier 3 — deep host and forensics
Business important
Track default

You are acting as

the break-glass IR account `svc-ir`, checked out of the vault for this incident — never the compromised identity

How you got here

The detection fired in the EDR console. You opened a live-response session from that detection, so your shell rides the EDR agent channel — containing the host will *not* cut you off, which is exactly why you contain from here rather than over SSH.

Your access

  • EDR console (detections + live response)

    Endpoint detection & response

    • Read the detection and process tree
    • Look up host criticality, owner and VIP flags
    • Open a live-response session on the host
    • Contain the host over the agent channel
    • Not yours: Disable user accounts (that's the identity team)
    • Not yours: Delete evidence
  • Live-response shell on the affected host

    Host shell session

    • Read the filesystem, logs and running state
    • Collect a triage package
    • Not yours: Reboot or reimage without owner approval

What's at stake

The affected host

Owner: The system's business owner, named on the asset record

Containing a host you haven't identified can stop revenue. Check criticality and owner before you isolate anything.

Rules of engagement

You may act alone

  • Investigate from the live-response session
  • Collect evidence and triage packages
  • Contain a standard-criticality host

Ask a human first

  • Containing a mission-critical host — asset owner and on-call manager first
  • Disabling a user identity — identity team, and HR/legal if it looks like an insider

Why this matters

"The virtual machines are slow" is a symptom with several different causes underneath it, and each leaves its own fingerprint: time spent waiting for a logical processor, memory promised statically and then paged, and storage taking longer to answer on a single path. Reading those figures turns a complaint into a diagnosis you can defend.

Concepts

Wait time is the figure that matches the complaint

A machine that is ready to run but has no logical processor free is doing nothing, and that wasted time is exactly what the user feels. It climbs far faster than the ratio that causes it, so a node that looks moderately busy can feel unusable.

Static memory keeps a promise the node cannot fund

Startup memory is reserved whether the machine uses it or not. Once the promises exceed the node, Windows pages, and paging a hypervisor's memory is the slowest thing in the building. Dynamic memory with a floor, a ceiling and a weight absorbs the same demand.

Balance is free; hardware is not

Half the machines on an idle second node costs nothing and removes most of the contention. Moving load is the first remedy to try, and the counters say immediately whether it worked.

One storage path is a queue and a single point of failure

A single path both caps throughput and drops the volume when that path goes. Response time on the slower media shows the cost plainly, which is why storage gets measured before the machines get blamed.

Objectives graded

  • Read the Performance tab before changing anything and write down which node, which counter and how far past the line.
  • Name the cause: too many virtual processors promised, and static memory the node cannot back.
  • Stop each machine, set a sane processor count, and turn dynamic memory on with a minimum, a maximum and a weight.
  • Move half the machines to the other node, enabling live migration first or moving them while they are stopped.
  • Add the second path to both volumes and raise the queue depth.
  • Read the same counters again and file the after figures beside the before ones.

Live walkthrough

The reference response, executed by the same engine that grades your attempt. Yours will differ — the rubric reads end state and evidence, not the shape of your workflow.

  1. 1.Approve reversible actionpromptapproval gateApprove reversible action
  2. 2.Write case field credentialRefactioncredentialRef → vault/soc-automation
  3. 3.Attach evidence: case/soar-h-620/evidenceactionThe learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.
  4. 4.Write case field closureNoteactionclosureNote → written
  5. 5.Attach evidence: range/hst-nw-hvadm01/sessionactionThe cluster was worked in the console rather than described from the ticket.
  6. 6.Write case field worstNodeactionworstNode → nw-hv-01
  7. 7.Write case field waitPctactionwaitPct → 20.3
  8. 8.Write case field vcpuRatioactionvcpuRatio → 2.5
  9. 9.Write case field pagedGbactionpagedGb → 128
  10. 10.Write case field archiveLatencyMsactionarchiveLatencyMs → 12
  11. 11.Write case field waitAfteractionwaitAfter → 0

Gate approved — 100%

16 of 16 rubric rules hold.

Gate denied — 92%

Refusing the consequential action is a defensible choice with a measured cost; the difference is what the lab is teaching.

  • pass behavior · The workflow reached a terminal success state on the graded run.
  • pass safety · A reversible action passed through a human approval gate.
  • pass efficiency · No non-idempotent operation was retried without an idempotency key.
  • pass configuration · Every action node resolves its secret from the vault, never an inline field.
  • pass investigation · The learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.
  • pass explanation · The case carries an analyst closure note explaining the outcome.
  • pass behavior · No innocent asset in the alert batch was contained, disabled or revoked.
  • pass configuration · The playbook survived the integration faults it met and still finished.
  • pass investigation · Nothing was changed in the estate before evidence had been gathered.
  • pass investigation · The cluster was worked in the console rather than described from the ticket.
  • pass investigation · The busy node was identified from the counters rather than guessed.
  • pass investigation · The complaint was turned into a number.
  • pass investigation · The cause behind the wait time was named.
  • pass investigation · The memory problem was measured as well as the processor one.
  • pass investigation · Storage was measured before the machines were blamed.
  • pass configuration · The fix was verified by re-reading the same counter, not declared.

MITRE ATT&CK coverage

Reading a cluster's real load — which node carries what, how far the processors are oversubscribed, where the storage goes — is the same enumeration an intruder performs from a management seat, and the figures decide whether a slowness complaint is capacity or compromise.

TechniqueNameTactic
T1082System Information DiscoveryDiscovery
T1046Network Service DiscoveryDiscovery
T1078Valid AccountsDefense Evasion

What each rubric rule proves

  • The workflow reached a terminal success state on the graded run.

    behavior · weight 20

  • A reversible action passed through a human approval gate.

    safety · weight 15

  • No non-idempotent operation was retried without an idempotency key.

    efficiency · weight 10

  • Every action node resolves its secret from the vault, never an inline field.

    configuration · weight 10

  • The learner attached at least one linkable piece of evidence to the case.

    investigation · weight 10

  • The case carries an analyst closure note explaining the outcome.

    explanation · weight 10

  • No innocent asset in the alert batch was contained, disabled or revoked.

    behavior · weight 15

  • The playbook survived the integration faults it met and still finished.

    configuration · weight 15

  • Nothing was changed in the estate before evidence had been gathered.

    investigation · weight 10

  • The cluster was worked in the console rather than described from the ticket.

    investigation · weight 15

  • The busy node was identified from the counters rather than guessed.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1082 System Information Discovery (Discovery)

  • The complaint was turned into a number.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1082 System Information Discovery (Discovery)

  • The cause behind the wait time was named.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1082 System Information Discovery (Discovery)

  • The memory problem was measured as well as the processor one.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1082 System Information Discovery (Discovery)

  • Storage was measured before the machines were blamed.

    investigation · weight 10 · T1046 Network Service Discovery (Discovery)

  • The fix was verified by re-reading the same counter, not declared.

    configuration · weight 15 · T1078 Valid Accounts (Defense Evasion)

Common mistakes

  • Believing the guest's own task manager instead of the node's counters.
  • Adding processors to a machine that is already waiting for the ones it has.
  • Fixing several things at once so nothing can be attributed to the change that caused it.
  • Declaring the fix done without re-reading the counter that started the ticket.

Same idea, three vendors

Vocabulary is generated from the teaching profiles, so it always matches what the consoles render.

ConceptCortex ForgeSummit SOARStoryline
caseIncidentContainerCase
alertAlertEventEvent
artifactIndicatorArtifactRecord
workflowPlaybookPlaybookStory
workflow-runPlaybook runPlaybook debug runStory run
nodeTaskBlockAction
connectorIntegrationAppCredential-backed action
connector-instanceIntegration instanceAssetResource
credentialCredentialAsset credentialCredential
approvalManual taskPromptPage
child-workflowSub-playbookChild playbookSub-story
context-pathContext pathDatapathEvent path
queueIncidentsEventsCases
taskWork Plan taskTaskCase task
noteWar Room entryNoteCase note

Where does this value come from?

The same reference to an enrichment node's verdict, written three ways:

  • Cortex Forge: ${enrich-sender.verdict}
  • Summit SOAR: enrich-sender.verdict
  • Storyline: <<enrich-sender.verdict>>

The same concepts in shipping products

The consoles you practice in use teaching names. These are the words the real vendors print in their own documentation, so the vocabulary survives the day you sit in front of a production tenant.

ConceptCortex XSOARXSOAR 8.xSplunk SOARSplunk SOAR 6.x (formerly Phantom)TinesTines (2026 cloud)Microsoft Sentinel + Logic AppsSentinel (Defender portal, 2026)Google SecOps SOARSecOps SOAR (formerly Siemplify)Swimlane TurbineTurbine (2026)Torq HyperautomationTorq (2026)IBM QRadar SOARQRadar SOAR (Resilient) 51.xServiceNow Security OperationsSecOps (Flow Designer era)
caseIncidentContainerCaseIncidentCaseRecordCaseIncidentSecurity incident (SIR)
alertAlertEventEventAlertAlertInbound record / signalTrigger eventEscalated offense / alertSecurity alert
artifactIndicatorArtifact (CEF fields)Event payload fieldEntityEntityField / correlation valueEvent fieldArtifactObservable
workflowPlaybookPlaybookStoryPlaybook (Logic App)PlaybookPlaybookWorkflowWorkflow (BPMN)Flow / subflow
workflow-runPlaybook runPlaybook run / debug runEvent flowLogic App runPlaybook executionPlaybook executionExecutionWorkflow executionFlow execution
nodeTaskBlockActionAction / stepAction / stepActionStepFunction / scriptFlow action
connectorIntegrationAppHTTP Request action / ToolConnectorIntegrationIntegrationIntegrationAppSpoke
connector-instanceIntegration instanceAssetCredential + resource pairAPI connectionIntegration instance (environment-scoped)AssetIntegration connectionApp configuration (app.config)Connection & credential alias
credentialCredentialAsset configuration secretCredentialManaged identity / connection secretIntegration parameter (secret)Vault secretSecretApp host secretCredential record
approvalManual (data collection) taskPrompt blockPage (form) / Send to ChatApproval action (Teams / email)Manual actionTask / approval actionApproval step (Torq Chat / Slack)Manual task / phase gateApproval activity
child-workflowSub-playbookChild playbookSend to StoryNested Logic AppBlockSub-playbookNested workflowCalled workflowSubflow
context-pathContext path (${...})DatapathFormula (<<path.to.value>>)Expression (@{body('step')})Placeholder ([Entity.Identifier])Reference ($record.field)Expression ({{ .event.field }})Rule/script object (incident.properties)Data pill
queueIncidents viewEvent / Case listCasesIncidents gridCases queueApplication workspaceCasesIncident listSIR queue
taskWork Plan taskTask (workbook phase)Case taskIncident taskTaskTaskCase taskTask (within phase)Response task
noteWar Room entryNoteCase noteCommentCase wall commentCommentCase commentNoteWork note

What transfers

Every performance complaint is worked the same way: measure, name the cause in a sentence, change one thing, measure again, and keep the before and after figures side by side.