Certified: The GIAC GCIL Audio Course

In this episode, we’re going to walk through what it means to manage a credential attack incident in a way that is calm, organized, and focused on restoring confidence in access. When people first learn incident response, they often assume the main job is to find the attacker and kick them out, like chasing someone out of a building. In credential incidents, the harder problem is that the attacker is pretending to be a legitimate user, and the evidence can look like ordinary activity unless you know what to check. Another challenge is that quick fixes can accidentally cause more harm, like locking out the wrong accounts or breaking access that the organization needs to function. The thread that ties everything together is trust: you are trying to regain trust in identities, trust in devices, and trust in the systems that decide who can do what. The three big moves we will build are lock down, validate access, and restore trust, and you should hear those as a sequence rather than three separate tasks.

Lock down is the urgent step, but it is easy to do it in a way that either misses the real threat or causes unnecessary disruption. The goal of lock down is to stop ongoing misuse while keeping enough visibility to understand what happened. In practice, that means you start by identifying what identity or identities are involved, because credential incidents often include more than one account, even if you only detected one. You then take immediate steps that reduce the attacker’s ability to act, such as forcing reauthentication, revoking active sessions, and temporarily restricting risky actions like changing recovery settings. If you lock down without thinking about the attacker’s possible persistence, you may only slow them down, because they could still hold session tokens or secondary access paths. If you lock down too aggressively without coordination, you can lock out critical users and create panic, which harms response quality. The right mindset is deliberate urgency, where you act quickly but with a clear purpose for each action you take.

A useful way to think about lock down is to separate containment of the identity from containment of the environment. Containing the identity means treating the compromised account as untrusted until proven otherwise, even if the user insists they did nothing wrong. That typically involves resetting the password, enforcing stronger authentication, and removing suspicious recovery methods that could allow the attacker back in. It can also involve disabling the account temporarily if the risk is high and business impact is manageable. Containing the environment means looking for any footholds created after the attacker logged in, such as new accounts, new access grants, or changes to security settings. An attacker who gets into an administrative account may create additional users or add their own device as trusted, so you are not done when the original password is changed. By separating these two containment targets, you avoid the common beginner mistake of thinking password reset equals incident closed.

While you are locking down, you also need to preserve enough evidence to understand scope, because scope is what determines how deep you need to go. Scope is not just which accounts were attacked, but which accounts were actually accessed and what systems were reached afterward. A simple but powerful practice is to capture a timeline of authentication events for the affected identity, including successful logins, failed attempts, and any unusual locations, devices, or times. You are trying to answer questions like whether the attacker only attempted access or actually gained it, whether they returned multiple times, and whether they switched between accounts. If there is a suspected phishing event, you also want to know when the user interacted with the message and when the first suspicious login occurred. This timeline does not require fancy tooling; it requires disciplined thinking about sequence. Without a timeline, teams often argue from assumptions, and assumptions are exactly what attackers rely on to stay hidden.

Once immediate misuse is slowed, the next phase is validate access, which means verifying what access was used and what changes were made, rather than simply trusting that things look normal now. Validation starts with the identity layer, because you need to confirm that the account’s profile, group memberships, and permission assignments are what they should be. Attackers love to quietly add themselves to groups or grant delegated access that survives password changes. You then validate the session layer, which means looking for active sessions, remembered devices, or long-lived tokens that could still be valid. Many modern systems keep users logged in across devices, which is convenient for people but also convenient for attackers who stole a session. You validate the recovery layer by checking whether the attacker changed phone numbers, email addresses, or other recovery options. Finally, you validate application behavior, looking for unusual actions such as exporting data, creating forwarding rules, setting up automatic payments, or creating new integration keys. Validation is the stage where you stop guessing and start proving what did or did not happen.

A particularly important validation target in credential incidents is email, because email is both a data store and a control plane for other accounts. If an attacker accessed email, you treat it as a potential gateway to password resets across many services. That means you check for mailbox rules that forward messages externally, rules that delete or hide alerts, and delegated access that gives another identity the ability to read or send mail. You also check for suspicious sent messages, because attackers often use compromised mailboxes to spread phishing inside the organization, leveraging the trust people have in familiar names. You look for unusual patterns like a burst of sent messages, new recipients, or messages sent at odd times. Even if you see no obvious malicious mail, you still consider the impact of what the attacker could have read, like password reset links, invoices, internal procedures, and private conversations. Validating email access is less about a single smoking gun and more about confirming the mailbox is not quietly configured to keep leaking information.

After validation comes restore trust, and this is where many teams rush and then regret it later. Restoring trust means you reestablish confidence that the correct people have the correct access, that attackers no longer have hidden access paths, and that users can resume work safely. One part of restoring trust is resetting and strengthening authentication for the affected identity, which can include requiring M F A where it was not enforced before and removing weak recovery options. Another part is cleaning up changes the attacker made, such as reversing permission grants, removing unknown devices, and rotating any secrets that might have been exposed. If you suspect the attacker accessed sensitive data, restoring trust also includes notifying the right parties so they can manage downstream risk, like monitoring for fraud or resetting accounts in connected systems. Restoring trust is not a single technical action; it is a set of confidence-building steps that make future access decisions reliable again.

It is also important to restore trust at the human level, because credential incidents can shake confidence in the organization’s security and in the affected user. New responders sometimes treat the user as the problem, but a more mature approach is to treat the user as a partner who needs clear guidance. You want the user to understand what happened in plain terms, what actions were taken, and what they should watch for next, without blame or jargon. This includes explaining why certain changes are required, like why a password reset is not enough if sessions remain active elsewhere. It also includes helping them recognize how credential theft can happen, such as through convincing messages or fake login pages, so they are less likely to be targeted successfully again. Trust is rebuilt when people feel informed and supported, not when they feel accused. That matters because users who feel ashamed may hide details that would help the investigation, like admitting they clicked a link or approved an unexpected prompt.

To manage these incidents well, you also need to think about the difference between fixing access and confirming the attacker is gone, because those are related but not identical. You can fix access by resetting passwords and enforcing M F A, but the attacker might still have persistence through a secondary account, a delegated mailbox, or a created integration key. That is why restoration must include a careful search for follow-on artifacts. For example, an attacker who accessed a cloud console might create new access keys, new roles, or new application registrations that act like back doors. An attacker who accessed a collaboration platform might invite external accounts, create new sharing links, or change permissions on shared folders. An attacker who accessed a workstation account might establish remote access methods or steal additional credentials from the device. You do not need to become tool-specific to grasp the principle: if the attacker had the ability to create new trusted objects, you must check for newly created trusted objects. That is the practical definition of hunting for persistence in a credential incident.

Another key part of incident management is choosing the right order of operations, because doing steps in the wrong order can destroy evidence or allow the attacker to adapt. If you immediately reset a password without checking for active sessions and mailbox rules, you might miss the chance to see what the attacker did while they were logged in. If you immediately disable an account without preserving authentication logs, you might lose context about where the attacker came from or which systems were accessed. On the other hand, waiting too long to contain can let the attacker exfiltrate more data or create more persistence. The balanced approach is to capture critical evidence quickly, then take containment steps that stop active harm, then do deeper validation to understand full scope, and then perform full restoration activities that prevent recurrence. In a mature response, you can do some of these in parallel across a team, but the underlying sequence still matters. Think of it as building a reliable story while simultaneously cutting off the attacker’s ability to keep writing new chapters.

Communication is another area where credential incidents can go off the rails, because people want certainty immediately, and certainty is often unavailable at the start. A strong incident manager communicates in terms of what is known, what is suspected, and what is being done next. You avoid overstating the impact early, but you also avoid minimizing it in a way that delays necessary actions. For example, if email was accessed, you can say that password reset links may have been visible and that you are reviewing downstream accounts, without claiming that every connected system was compromised. If an administrative account was involved, you can say that you are verifying whether any new access grants were made, because that is a high-risk possibility. Communication is part of restoring trust, because stakeholders need to feel that the situation is being handled with competence and transparency. Good communication also protects response quality, because it reduces panic-driven decisions like mass resets without prioritization or uncoordinated changes that break business operations.

A beginner-friendly way to measure whether you have restored trust is to check whether your original assumptions have been tested and whether high-risk pathways have been closed. If the incident started as password spraying, you confirm whether any accounts actually succeeded and whether those accounts had weak passwords that need broader correction. If it started as credential stuffing, you consider whether password reuse exists elsewhere and whether other accounts might be vulnerable to the same reused pairs. If it started as credential theft, you focus on recovery methods, sessions, and user messaging patterns that could indicate additional victims. You then verify that the key control points are clean, meaning no unknown devices, no suspicious forwarding or delegation, no unexpected privilege changes, and no new trusted integrations. You also confirm that monitoring is in place to catch repeat attempts, because attackers often return after being blocked. Restored trust does not mean you are certain nothing happened; it means you have taken enough disciplined steps that the system’s identity decisions are reliable again.

Finally, managing credential attack incidents is about building a repeatable habit that works under stress, because real incidents rarely arrive with a neat label. You lock down to stop immediate misuse, but you do it thoughtfully so you preserve visibility and avoid unnecessary harm. You validate access to prove what happened across identities, sessions, recovery paths, and key systems like email and cloud control planes. Then you restore trust by strengthening authentication, cleaning up attacker changes, rotating exposed secrets, and communicating clearly so users and stakeholders can operate safely again. The confidence you are rebuilding is not abstract; it is the confidence that when a system says a user is authenticated and authorized, that statement reflects reality. When you can manage that end-to-end process calmly, you are no longer just reacting to login anomalies, you are actively restoring the integrity of identity in the environment. That is the heart of credential incident management, and it is the foundation for handling more complex incidents later.