Hunting results
Number of query matches by detection
Explore a simulated execution of a real home lab automation workflow.
I built an automated threat hunting workflow in Microsoft Sentinel, using Logic Apps to run scheduled queries, record findings and give me a starting point for investigation. Explore the workflow, review the ATT&CK mappings and work through how I investigate the results.
Number of query matches by detection
Click a stage to inspect its function
Run a scenario in Inside my real lab to populate these results
My home lab uses Microsoft Sentinel, Log Analytics, Azure Logic Apps, Sentinel watchlists and an Excel Threat Hunt Register. Follow how the components work together, then replay an offline, fictional example to see how a scheduled hunt becomes an analyst review task.
Choose a component to see its purpose, inputs, outputs and design considerations
Implementation walkthrough
Follow a fictional execution through the real architecture, from Sentinel to the Excel register and completion email.
Try multiple runs: Choose a scenario and press Start automation again. Each run adds another block to the register.
Compare results: Click a bold run date or use the selector below to view its Hunts, email and execution log.
| # | Week Commencing | Query Name | Total Query Matches | Action Required | Notes | Final Status | Logic Tuning | Reviewed By |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Press Start automation to watch results appear in the register… | ||||||||
This is a browser-only animation of the implemented workflow. It does not run Azure Logic Apps, query Sentinel, access the actual watchlists, modify Excel or send email. Event counts, dates and messages are fictional.
What was built, and what this public demonstration can and cannot prove
Ten Sentinel hunts, a scheduled/manual Logic App, Log Analytics query execution, Sentinel watchlist reference data, Excel result logging and an email prompting review. The workflow has been run successfully during development.
Counts, identities, event records, workflow progress and register entries on this site are fictional. No live telemetry, credentials, tenant identifiers or original private KQL are published.
Test each query against known events, document detection validation, strengthen monitoring and error handling, and move from a lab-friendly Excel register toward a more scalable operational datastore if the programme grows.
Representative of la-automated-threat-hunting-lab
How each stage works
Illustrative workflow events
When a hunt returns matches, I open the underlying logs to see what's actually happened. I work backwards from the scheduled KQL, examine the underlying activity, cross-check the evidence and record my decision.
Select a hunt below, then start a guided investigation.
TH-001 through TH-010
Fictional investigation data · reserved example IP addresses
A simple breakdown of mapped and unmapped tactics. This does not measure detection effectiveness.
Select any technique in the matrix below to inspect related hunts and open its official ATT&CK description. Unmapped tactics are not automatically security gaps.
Proposed and reviewed technique mappings — not confirmed adversary coverage
Select a mapped technique
Illustrative ideas to investigate, not verified gaps
| Area | Candidate hunt | Data requirement | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credential Access | Password spray patterns across accounts | Entra SigninLogs | Assess existing TH-003 |
| Persistence | Application credential additions by unexpected principals | Entra AuditLogs | Assess existing TH-005 |
| Defense Evasion | Security monitoring configuration changes | Relevant audit telemetry | Telemetry review |
| Lateral Movement | Unusual remote access behaviour | Endpoint or network logs | Telemetry review |
Read-only representation of your Excel Threat Hunt Register