CYBER REPORT Notesnook Template

Use This Template in Notesnook

Perplexity Cybersecurity Report template for Notesnook with website Setup Instructions:

Create Main Report Note: Copy this template as your primary report note
Enable Internal Linking: Use @ symbol to create links between notes (e.g., @Technical Analysis - SQL Injection)
Organize with Notebooks: Create separate notebooks for:
- Research &amp; Sources
- Technical Evidence
- Plain Language Summaries
- Data References
Use Color Coding: Assign colors to notes by priority:
- Red: Critical vulnerabilities
- Orange: High-risk findings
- Yellow: Medium-risk items
- Blue: Reference materials
Tag System: Create consistent tags like #vulnerability, #industry-healthcare, #insider-threat

[REPORT TITLE] - Cybersecurity Assessment

Classification: [CONFIDENTIAL/RESTRICTED/INTERNAL] Report Date: [Date] Assessment Period: [Start Date] - [End Date] Report Version: [Version Number]

Executive Summary

Key Findings Overview

Plain Language Summary: [Write 2-3 sentences explaining the main security issues found in simple terms. Link to detailed technical analysis using @Technical-Findings-Summary]

Critical Risk Assessment: [High/Medium/Low] Immediate Actions Required: [Number] items Business Impact Assessment: [Impact Level]

Strategic Implications

Confidentiality Risk: [Assessment] → Link: @Confidentiality-Impact-Analysis
Integrity Risk: [Assessment] → Link: @Integrity-Risk-Details
Availability Risk: [Assessment] → Link: @Availability-Threat-Assessment

Key Recommendations (Plain Language)

[Action item in business terms] → Link: @Technical-Recommendation-001
[Action item in business terms] → Link: @Technical-Recommendation-002
[Action item in business terms] → Link: @Technical-Recommendation-003

Data Sources Referenced:

Google Sheets: [Sheet Name/URL] → Link: @Data-Source-Primary
Analysis Database: [Database Reference] → Link: @Analysis-Dataset-001

Threat Actor/Campaign Assessment

Attribution Analysis (Plain Language)

What We Found: [Explain in business terms who might be behind the threats and why they would target the organization]

Likely Actor Type: [Nation-state/Criminal/Insider/Hacktivist] Motivation Assessment: [Financial/Espionage/Disruption/Other] Attribution Confidence: [High/Moderate/Low]

Threat Actor Profile Summary

Capability Level: [Basic/Intermediate/Advanced/Expert]
Historical Activity: Link to @Threat-Actor-Timeline
Similar Past Incidents: Link to @Historical-Comparison

Technical Attribution Details

TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, Procedures): Link to @Technical-TTP-Analysis Infrastructure Indicators: Link to @IOC-Technical-Details Campaign Similarities: Link to @Campaign-Comparison-Matrix
FURTHER ANALYSIS NEEDED:

Cross-reference with threat intelligence feeds
Analyze infrastructure overlaps with known campaigns
Review historical incident patterns
Validate attribution indicators

Data References:

Threat Intelligence Sheet: [Google Sheets URL]
IOC Database: Link to @IOC-Database-Reference

Timeline & Indicators

Incident Timeline (Plain Language)

What Happened When: [Provide a chronological narrative in simple terms about how events unfolded]

Critical Timeline Milestones

Date/Time	Event Description	Confidence Level	Technical Details Link
[Timestamp]	[Plain language description]	[High/Med/Low]	@Technical-Event-001
[Timestamp]	[Plain language description]	[High/Med/Low]	@Technical-Event-002

Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)

High-Confidence Indicators

Validated Evidence: Link to @High-Confidence-IOCs

Network indicators: [Brief description] → @Network-IOC-Details
File system indicators: [Brief description] → @File-System-IOCs
Registry indicators: [Brief description] → @Registry-IOCs

Medium-Confidence Indicators

Probable Evidence: Link to @Medium-Confidence-IOCs [List with links to detailed analysis]

Gaps and Uncertainties

ANALYSIS GAPS IDENTIFIED:

[Specific gap requiring further investigation]
[Data source not available for timeframe]
[Evidence correlation pending]

Data Sources:

Timeline Database: [Google Sheets URL]
Log Analysis Results: Link to @Log-Analysis-Data

Adversary Capability & Intent Assessment

Capability Assessment (Plain Language)

What the Attackers Can Do: [Explain the attacker’s demonstrated skills and tools in business terms]

Demonstrated Capabilities:

Technical Sophistication: [Assessment] → Link: @Technical-Capability-Analysis
Tools & Infrastructure: [Description] → Link: @Adversary-Toolset
Operational Security: [Assessment] → Link: @OpSec-Analysis

Intent Analysis

Primary Objectives: [What they’re trying to achieve] Targeting Rationale: [Why this organization] → Link: @Target-Selection-Analysis Escalation Potential: [Likelihood of increased activity] → Link: @Escalation-Assessment

Attack Flow Analysis

Hypothetical Attack Progression

NOTE: These attack flows represent hypothetical scenarios based on observed TTPs and industry patterns. Confidence levels and assumptions are clearly marked.

Attack Flow 1: [Attack Type - e.g., “Credential Harvesting to Data Exfiltration”]

Link to detailed flow: @Attack-Flow-Credential-Harvesting
Business Impact Summary: [Plain language description of what this attack could achieve]
Technical Flow: Link to @Technical-Attack-Flow-001
Key Assumptions:

Assumption 1: [Clearly state what you’re assuming and why]
Assumption 2: [Include confidence level for each assumption]
Assumption 3: [Note any dependencies or prerequisites]

Confidence Assessment: [High/Moderate/Low] based on [reasoning]

Attack Flow 2: [Attack Type - e.g., “Insider Threat Scenario”]

Link to detailed flow: @Attack-Flow-Insider-Threat
FURTHER ANALYSIS NEEDED:

Validate attack path feasibility
Test defensive controls against this scenario
Review access controls for insider threat vectors

Data References:

Capability Assessment Matrix: [Google Sheets URL]
Attack Flow Models: Link to @Attack-Flow-Database

Vulnerability & Exploitation Risk Analysis

Risk Organization Approach

NOTE: This report groups vulnerabilities by [INDUSTRY SECTOR / VULNERABILITY TYPE] because [reasoning for choice - see guidance section below]

Critical Vulnerabilities (Plain Language)

Most Dangerous Issues Found: [Explain the worst problems in terms of business impact]

[Vulnerability Category 1] - Critical Risk

Business Impact: [What this means for operations] Exploitation Likelihood: [High/Medium/Low] → Link: @Exploitation-Analysis-001 Technical Details: Link to @Technical-Vuln-Analysis-001
CIA Triad Impact:

Confidentiality: [Impact assessment] → Link: @Confidentiality-Impact-001
Integrity: [Impact assessment] → Link: @Integrity-Impact-001
Availability: [Impact assessment] → Link: @Availability-Impact-001

High-Risk Vulnerabilities

[Similar structure for each vulnerability category]

Risk Scoring Matrix

Link to comprehensive scoring: @Risk-Matrix-Detailed
FURTHER ANALYSIS NEEDED:

Penetration testing to validate exploitability
Asset inventory cross-reference
Business process impact assessment

Data References:

Vulnerability Database: [Google Sheets URL]
Risk Scoring Model: Link to @Risk-Scoring-Reference

Mitigation & Defensive Posture

Current Defense Evaluation (Plain Language)

How Well Protected Are We: [Assess current security measures in business terms]

Existing Controls Assessment

Effective Controls: Link to @Effective-Controls-Analysis Control Gaps: Link to @Defense-Gaps-Analysis Residual Risk: [Assessment] → Link: @Residual-Risk-Calculation

Prioritized Remediation Plan

Immediate Actions (0-30 days)

[Action Item] - Priority: Critical
- Plain Language: [What needs to happen and why]
- Technical Implementation: Link to @Technical-Implementation-001
- Business Justification: [Cost/benefit reasoning]
- Resources Required: [Staff, budget, time]

Short-term Actions (1-3 months)

[Similar structure]

Long-term Strategic Improvements (3-12 months)

[Similar structure]
IMPLEMENTATION TRACKING:

Resource allocation confirmed
Timeline dependencies mapped
Success metrics defined

Data References:

Mitigation Cost Analysis: [Google Sheets URL]
Implementation Timeline: Link to @Implementation-Schedule

Impact Projection

Business Impact Scenarios

Best Case Scenario

Likelihood: [Percentage] Description: [What happens if everything goes right] Business Metrics: Link to @Best-Case-Metrics

Most Likely Scenario

Likelihood: [Percentage] Description: [What probably will happen] Business Metrics: Link to @Most-Likely-Metrics

Worst Case Scenario

Likelihood: [Percentage] Description: [What happens in the worst outcome] Business Metrics: Link to @Worst-Case-Metrics

Quantitative Impact Assessment

Financial Impact Range: [Low] - [High] Operational Disruption: [Duration/Scope] Reputational Impact: [Assessment]
Data References:

Impact Modeling: [Google Sheets URL]
Historical Incident Costs: Link to @Historical-Cost-Data

FURTHER ANALYSIS NEEDED:

Monte Carlo risk modeling
Customer impact survey
Regulatory compliance review

Conclusions & Recommendations

Key Findings Summary (Plain Language)

Bottom Line: [Summarize the most critical points for executive consumption]

Critical Risk Areas

[Primary concern] → Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]
[Secondary concern] → Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]
[Tertiary concern] → Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]

Probable Future Developments

Short-term (1-3 months):

[Likely development 1] → Confidence: [Level]
[Likely development 2] → Confidence: [Level]

Long-term (3-12 months):

[Strategic trend 1] → Link: @Long-term-Analysis-001
[Strategic trend 2] → Link: @Long-term-Analysis-002

Final Recommendations - Executive Priority

[Top Priority Action]
- Why: [Business justification]
- Impact: [Expected improvement]
- Timeline: [Implementation timeframe]
- Technical Details: Link to @Executive-Rec-001
[Second Priority Action] [Similar structure]

Technical Appendix (Second Half of Document)

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION

This section contains detailed technical information supporting the plain language assessments above. Each section corresponds to linked references in the main report.

@Technical-Findings-Summary

Vulnerability Technical Details

@Technical-Vuln-Analysis-001: [Vulnerability Name]

CVE References: [CVE numbers if applicable] CVSS Score: [Score] ([Vector string]) Technical Description: [Detailed technical explanation of the vulnerability]
Exploitation Details:

[Technical exploitation steps or proof of concept outline]

Evidence Artifacts:

Log entries: [Specific log references]
Network captures: [Packet analysis references]
File system evidence: [File hashes, paths, timestamps]

Testing Results:

Scanning results: [Vulnerability scanner output]
Manual testing: [Verification procedures performed]
Proof of concept: Link to @PoC-Analysis-001

Attack Flow Technical Documentation

@Technical-Attack-Flow-001: Credential Harvesting Attack

Assumptions and Confidence Levels:

Assumption 1: Network segmentation allows lateral movement
- Confidence: Medium (based on network documentation review)
- Validation Method: Network mapping and access testing needed
Assumption 2: User credentials can be harvested via [specific method]
- Confidence: High (based on similar environment testing)
- Supporting Evidence: [Reference to industry research/testing]

Technical Attack Sequence:

Initial Access (MITRE ATT&CK: T1566.001 - Spearphishing Attachment)
- Method: [Specific technical method]
- Prerequisites: [Technical requirements]
- Detection Opportunities: [How this could be detected]
- Defensive Controls: [What should stop this]
Execution (MITRE ATT&CK: T1059.001 - PowerShell)
- Technical Details: [Command sequences, payloads]
- Environmental Requirements: [OS version, permissions needed]
- Indicators Created: [Files, registry entries, network traffic]
Credential Access (MITRE ATT&CK: T1003.001 - LSASS Memory)
- Tools/Techniques: [Specific tools like Mimikatz, etc.]
- Success Criteria: [What constitutes successful credential harvest]
- Failure Points: [Where this attack might fail]

Attack Decision Tree:

[Decision points in attack flow]
IF credential harvest successful THEN lateral movement
IF detected during harvest THEN [alternative path]
IF admin credentials obtained THEN [escalation path]

Proof of Concept Development:
POC Status: [Planned/In Progress/Completed/Not Feasible]
POC Scope:

Environment: [Test environment specifications]
Limitations: [What the POC will NOT demonstrate]
Success Criteria: [How to measure POC success]
Safety Measures: [Containment and rollback procedures]

POC Results: [If completed]

Successful Steps: [What worked as expected]
Failed Steps: [What didn’t work and why]
Unexpected Findings: [Surprises discovered during testing]
Real-world Applicability: [How POC relates to actual environment]

@Technical-Attack-Flow-002: Insider Threat Scenario

Threat Model:

Actor Type: [Malicious insider/Negligent insider/Compromised insider]
Access Level: [Current permissions and access]
Motivation: [Assumed motivation for threat modeling]
Technical Capabilities: [Assumed skill level]

Attack Progression: [Detailed technical steps with MITRE ATT&CK mapping]
Detection Strategies:

Behavioral Analytics: [What patterns to look for]
Technical Indicators: [System-level indicators]
Data Loss Prevention: [DLP triggers and monitoring]

@IOC-Technical-Details

Network Indicators

IP Addresses:
- [IP address] - [Description] - [Confidence level] - [First seen] - [Last seen]
- [Attribution/context for each indicator]

Domain Names:
- [Domain] - [Description] - [Confidence level] - [Registration data]

URLs:
- [Full URLs with context and confidence assessment]

File System Indicators

File Hashes:
MD5: [hash] - [filename] - [Description]
SHA-1: [hash] - [filename] - [Description]  
SHA-256: [hash] - [filename] - [Description]

File Paths:
[Full paths with creation/modification timestamps]

Registry Keys:
[Registry locations with expected values]

Process and Service Indicators

Process Names:
- [Process name] - [Expected behavior] - [Malicious behavior indicators]

Service Names:
- [Service name] - [Legitimate vs malicious usage patterns]

Command Line Patterns:
- [Suspicious command patterns to monitor for]

@Risk-Matrix-Detailed

Risk Scoring Methodology

Probability Assessment:

High (3): [Criteria for high probability]
Medium (2): [Criteria for medium probability]
Low (1): [Criteria for low probability]

Impact Assessment:

High (3): [Business impact criteria]
Medium (2): [Business impact criteria]
Low (1): [Business impact criteria]

Risk Score Matrix:

Impact
         1  2  3
Prob 1   1  2  3
     2   2  4  6
     3   3  6  9

Individual Risk Assessments

[Detailed risk scoring for each vulnerability with justification]

Data Source References

@Data-Source-Primary

Google Sheets Integration:

Sheet Name: [Vulnerability Tracking Database]
URL: [Google Sheets URL]
Data Structure:
- Column A: Vulnerability ID
- Column B: CVSS Score
- Column C: Asset Affected
- Column D: Remediation Status
- Column E: Business Impact Rating
Update Frequency: [How often data is refreshed]
Data Validation: [How accuracy is ensured]

@Analysis-Dataset-001

Database Schema:

-- Example structure for analysis data
CREATE TABLE findings (
  finding_id VARCHAR(50) PRIMARY KEY,
  finding_type VARCHAR(100),
  severity_score INTEGER,
  confidence_level VARCHAR(20),
  first_observed DATETIME,
  last_updated DATETIME,
  technical_details TEXT,
  business_impact TEXT
);

Query Examples:

-- Critical findings summary
SELECT finding_type, COUNT(*) as count
FROM findings 
WHERE severity_score &gt;= 8
GROUP BY finding_type;

Testing and Validation

@PoC-Analysis-001: [Vulnerability Name] Proof of Concept

Executive Summary of POC: This proof of concept demonstrates [what it proves] in a controlled environment. The test was conducted on [date] in [environment description] with [safety measures].
POC Environment:

Test Network: [Isolated/production-like/simulated]
Target Systems: [OS versions, applications, configurations]
Safety Controls: [Network isolation, monitoring, rollback procedures]
Authorization: [Who approved the testing]

POC Execution Steps:

Preparation Phase:

# Commands used to set up test environment
[Actual commands with sanitized sensitive information]

Exploitation Phase:

# Commands used to demonstrate vulnerability
[Step-by-step exploitation commands]

Validation Phase:

# Commands used to verify successful exploitation
[Verification commands and expected output]

POC Results:

Success Rate: [X/Y attempts successful]
Time to Exploit: [Average time required]
Detection Rate: [Whether security controls detected the activity]
False Positive Rate: [If applicable]

Evidence Artifacts:

Screenshots: [Reference to documentation]
Log Files: [Relevant log entries showing exploitation]
Network Captures: [PCAP analysis if applicable]
System State Changes: [File system, registry, process changes]

Real-World Applicability:

Environment Differences: [How test differs from production]
Attack Prerequisites: [What attacker would need in real scenario]
Success Probability: [Likelihood in actual environment]
Mitigation Effectiveness: [How proposed controls would prevent this]

POC Limitations:

[What the POC doesn’t prove]
[Environmental constraints that may not reflect reality]
[Assumptions made during testing]

Remediation Validation: After implementing recommended controls:

Re-test Date: [When remediation will be verified]
Expected Outcome: [POC should fail because…]
Validation Criteria: [How to confirm fix is effective]

Report Guidance and Best Practices

Vulnerability Grouping Strategy

Industry-Based Grouping (Recommended for most situations):

When to Use: When the organization operates in a specific regulated industry
Benefits:
- Aligns with industry-specific threats and compliance requirements
- Facilitates peer comparison and industry benchmarking
- Supports targeted remediation based on industry best practices
Example Industries: Healthcare, Financial Services, Manufacturing, Energy

Vulnerability Type-Based Grouping:

When to Use: For organizations with diverse business units or technology stacks
Benefits:
- Enables technical team specialization
- Supports tool-based remediation approaches
- Better for organizations with strong technical security teams
Example Types: Network vulnerabilities, Application vulnerabilities, System vulnerabilities

Notesnook Integration Best Practices

Cross-Reference Linking Strategy

Linking Hierarchy:

Executive Links → High-level technical summaries
Technical Summaries → Detailed technical analysis
Technical Analysis → Supporting data and evidence
Evidence → External data sources (Google Sheets, etc.)

Link Naming Convention:

Use descriptive names: @Technical-SQL-Injection-Analysis not @Technical-001
Include confidence levels: @High-Confidence-IOC-Analysis
Group by category: @Mitigation-Network-Controls

Data Management in Notesnook

Google Sheets Integration:

Create master spreadsheet for quantitative data
Link specific cells/ranges in Notesnook notes
Use consistent column headers across all sheets
Include data validation formulas in sheets
Set up automated backup of sheet data

Version Control:

Use note versioning for major report updates
Create dated snapshots of key analysis notes
Tag notes with report version numbers
Maintain change log note with update history

Citation and Evidence Management

Evidence Chain Structure:

Finding Statement [Main Report]
    &darr; @link
Technical Analysis [Technical Section]  
    &darr; @link
Raw Evidence [Evidence Notes]
    &darr; @link  
External Data Source [Google Sheets/Files]

Citation Format:

High Confidence: Direct link to primary evidence
Medium Confidence: Link to analysis note explaining reasoning
Low Confidence: Link to assumptions and uncertainty analysis

Collaborative Features Usage

Team Collaboration:

Use shared notebooks for team sections
Assign color codes by team member or role
Create review checklists as separate notes
Use comments feature for peer review process

Quality Assurance:

Create review templates as separate notes
Link QA checklists to main report sections
Use tags to track review status (#reviewed, pending, revised)
Maintain reviewer assignment note with @links to reviewed sections

Advanced Analysis Integration

Connecting to External Tools

SIEM Integration:

Export relevant queries as code blocks in technical notes
Link to saved searches in SIEM platforms
Document correlation rules used for analysis
Include query performance and result statistics

Threat Intelligence Feeds:

Create separate notebook for TI feed analysis
Link specific indicators to analysis notes
Track indicator confidence decay over time
Document feed source reliability assessments

Automation and Workflow

Automated Data Updates:

Document Google Sheets API integration for live data
Set up scheduled exports from security tools
Create data freshness validation checklists
Link to automation scripts and configurations

Report Generation Workflow:

Data Collection Phase → Populate evidence notes
Analysis Phase → Create technical analysis notes with @links
Synthesis Phase → Write plain language summaries with @links
Review Phase → Use collaborative features for team review
Finalization Phase → Export final report with all links intact

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Link Management:

Broken Links: Use Notesnook’s reference tracking to identify orphaned links
Circular References: Maintain hierarchy diagram to prevent circular linking
Link Overload: Limit to 3-5 links per paragraph for readability

Data Synchronization:

Google Sheets Changes: Document when external data sources are updated
Version Conflicts: Use timestamped note titles for data snapshots
Access Issues: Maintain backup copies of critical external data

Performance Optimization:

Large Notes: Split oversized technical notes into focused sub-notes
Image Heavy: Use external image hosting for large screenshots/diagrams
Search Speed: Use consistent tagging for faster note discovery

Appendices

Appendix A: Acronyms and Definitions

CIA Triad: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability
IOC: Indicator of Compromise
TTP: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures
POC: Proof of Concept
CVSS: Common Vulnerability Scoring System

Appendix B: External References

MITRE ATT&CK Framework: https://attack.mitre.org/
NIST Cybersecurity Framework: https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework
OWASP Top 10: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/

Appendix C: Contact Information

Report Authors:

Primary Analyst: [Name, Contact]
Technical Lead: [Name, Contact]
Review Team: [Names, Contacts]

Data Sources:

Primary Database: [Contact/Access Information]
Google Sheets Owner: [Contact Information]
External Feeds: [Vendor contacts]

End of Template
Template Usage Notes:

Replace all bracketed placeholders with actual content
Ensure all @links are created as actual Notesnook internal links
Validate Google Sheets access and permissions before finalizing
Test all POC procedures in isolated environments only
Regular template updates recommended quarterly based on evolving threats

My Knowledge Base

Explorer

CYBER REPORT Notesnook Template

CYBER REPORT Notesnook Template

Use This Template in Notesnook

[REPORT TITLE] - Cybersecurity Assessment

Executive Summary

Key Findings Overview

Strategic Implications

Key Recommendations (Plain Language)

Threat Actor/Campaign Assessment

Attribution Analysis (Plain Language)

Threat Actor Profile Summary

Technical Attribution Details

Timeline & Indicators

Incident Timeline (Plain Language)

Critical Timeline Milestones

Indicators of Compromise (IOCs)

High-Confidence Indicators

Medium-Confidence Indicators

Gaps and Uncertainties

Adversary Capability & Intent Assessment

Capability Assessment (Plain Language)

Intent Analysis

Attack Flow Analysis

Hypothetical Attack Progression

Attack Flow 1: [Attack Type - e.g., “Credential Harvesting to Data Exfiltration”]

Attack Flow 2: [Attack Type - e.g., “Insider Threat Scenario”]

Vulnerability & Exploitation Risk Analysis

Risk Organization Approach

Critical Vulnerabilities (Plain Language)

[Vulnerability Category 1] - Critical Risk

High-Risk Vulnerabilities

Risk Scoring Matrix

Mitigation & Defensive Posture

Current Defense Evaluation (Plain Language)

Existing Controls Assessment

Prioritized Remediation Plan

Immediate Actions (0-30 days)

Short-term Actions (1-3 months)

Long-term Strategic Improvements (3-12 months)

Impact Projection

Business Impact Scenarios

Best Case Scenario

Most Likely Scenario

Worst Case Scenario

Quantitative Impact Assessment

Conclusions & Recommendations

Key Findings Summary (Plain Language)

Critical Risk Areas

Probable Future Developments

Final Recommendations - Executive Priority

Technical Appendix (Second Half of Document)

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SECTION

@Technical-Findings-Summary

Vulnerability Technical Details

@Technical-Vuln-Analysis-001: [Vulnerability Name]

Attack Flow Technical Documentation

@Technical-Attack-Flow-001: Credential Harvesting Attack

@Technical-Attack-Flow-002: Insider Threat Scenario

@IOC-Technical-Details

Network Indicators

File System Indicators

Process and Service Indicators

@Risk-Matrix-Detailed

Risk Scoring Methodology

Individual Risk Assessments

Data Source References

@Data-Source-Primary

@Analysis-Dataset-001

Testing and Validation

@PoC-Analysis-001: [Vulnerability Name] Proof of Concept

Report Guidance and Best Practices

Vulnerability Grouping Strategy

Notesnook Integration Best Practices

Cross-Reference Linking Strategy

Data Management in Notesnook

Citation and Evidence Management

Collaborative Features Usage

Advanced Analysis Integration