Cybersecurity & Information Security

Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22: Network Connections and DNS Queries

7 min readPublished: August 5, 2026

Professional visual illustration of Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22 in Windows and Identity

Quick answer

Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22 requires reading the full event, not just the Event ID: time, computer, user, Logon ID, Process, network source, and organizational context. The conclusion is formed by correlating multiple sources.

Windows and Identity investigations rely on a combination of authentication events, process creation, permission changes, Sysmon telemetry, and organizational context. A single event almost never provides a complete conclusion. This article focuses on Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22 and is intended for SOC analysts and Endpoint investigators. The goal is to provide a working methodology that can be applied in practice, in a professional interview, and in a work environment, without settling for a dictionary definition.

The main challenge is that data is almost always partial. ProcessGuid, DestinationIp, DestinationPort can point to a direction, but their meaning depends on time, asset, user, and expected activity. Therefore, we will build the investigation around an investigative question, required evidence, and clear termination criteria.

The practical scenario in the article is: Connecting a Query to a process and IP in a Timeline. All examples are lab data or process descriptions. When it comes to Penetration Testing, Web, or Cloud, one must only work with explicit authorization, a defined Scope, and the ability to stop the test.

Event 3 Fields

The important fields are not necessarily those displayed at the top of the screen. In Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22, stable identifiers, time, source, destination, result, and context must be identified. Useful examples are ProcessGuid, DestinationIp, DestinationPort, QueryName, QueryResults, UtcTime. The goal is to enable Correlation between records and not just reading a single Event.

It is recommended to create a small data dictionary: field name, meaning, format, source, expected Null values, and whether it is reliable for linking. This allows distinguishing between a display field and an investigative identifier, and identifying when a Connector or version has changed the Schema.

Event 22 Fields

Connecting by ProcessGuid

Proper implementation starts with requirements, not defaults. Define which Use Cases are supported, what is the data volume, who manages the configuration, and what is the rollback mechanism. In Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22, distinguish between settings that generate Telemetry and settings that filter or enrich it.

After configuration, run a controlled test with expected data, verify that the event was recorded, that the central fields exist, and that the change did not create overload or a Blind spot. Every change is saved in a version, with date, owner, reason, and test result.

Identifying Unusual Domains and Targets

Investigation of Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22 begins by formulating a Hypothesis: what behavior explains the finding, and what evidence will confirm or refute it. Then, expand the time window, verify the entities, and look for a sequence before and after the event.

Good correlation combines at least two types of information from ProcessGuid, DestinationIp, DestinationPort, QueryName, QueryResults, UtcTime. For each finding, state what it proves, what it does not prove, and what is the next step. If the data is insufficient, mark it as Unknown and do not turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence.

Limitations and Validation from Additional Sources

At this stage, define what evidence is needed to answer the investigative question. For Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22, the basic points are Event ID and Provider, Computer, User and Logon ID, Process, Parent and Command Line, Source IP, Workstation and Logon Type. For each source, document ownership, retention period, time zone, ingestion delay, and fields that may be missing.

Data collection quality is not measured by the log 'arriving'. You must check Completeness, Latency, Parsing, Duplicate events, and Time synchronization. A Canary test or a known lab event allows verifying that the action appeared at the source, passed through the Pipeline, and can be searched in the correct fields.

Unique Focus Areas for Examination

In this topic, it is recommended to build a focused evidence map in advance. The main examination points are: ProcessGuid, DestinationIp, DestinationPort, QueryName, QueryResults, UtcTime, query name, response code, TTL, subdomain entropy. The list is not an automatic Checklist; each item is chosen because it can link an entity, action, and time or explain legitimate behavior.

ProcessGuid: Define the expected value, what would be considered anomalous, and what additional source would verify the finding.
DestinationIp: Define the expected value, what would be considered anomalous, and what additional source would verify the finding.
DestinationPort: Define the expected value, what would be considered anomalous, and what additional source would verify the finding.
QueryName: Define the expected value, what would be considered anomalous, and what additional source would verify the finding.
QueryResults: Define the expected value, what would be considered anomalous, and what additional source would verify the finding.
UtcTime: Define the expected value, what would be considered anomalous, and what additional source would verify the finding.

When one of the focus areas is unavailable, document the gap and choose an alternative. For example, if the Process identifier is unstable, you can use time, Host, User, and Parent; if the Payload is encrypted, use Metadata, volume, frequency, and TLS/DNS context.

Recommended Workflow

Define a Scope and one working question regarding Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22.
List the data sources and required evidence: ProcessGuid, DestinationIp, DestinationPort, QueryName.
Create a short Baseline of normal behavior or expected outcome.
Perform the minimal test in a lab environment and save time, input, and output.
Build a Timeline or comparison table and separate fact from interpretation.
Pivot to an additional source to confirm or refute the initial explanation.
Summarize the decision, limitations, recommended action, and Retest criteria.

Practical Scenario

The chosen scenario is connecting a Query to a process and IP in a Timeline. The purpose of the exercise is not to prove attack capability, but to practice safe collection, comparison, and documentation. Before starting, define simulated data, a time window, and an expected outcome.

At the end of the exercise, a deliverable should be submitted that another analyst or tester can review: a screenshot or export of the evidence, a short Timeline, initial hypothesis, confirming evidence, limitation, and recommendation. When there is insufficient evidence, the correct conclusion is that the scenario was not proven.

Step	What is performed	Deliverable
Preparation	Define Scope, time, and target. List which fields or evidence from ProcessGuid, DestinationIp, DestinationPort are expected to appear.	Short test plan
Data Creation	Perform a safe, simulated action related to Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22, without real information or impact on a production system.	Controlled event/Request/Flow
Collection	Collect the raw evidence and context from an additional source. Verify Time zone, identifiers, and integrity.	Two linked pieces of evidence
Analysis	Write what each piece of evidence proves, what it does not prove, and what is the possible legitimate explanation.	Interim conclusion
Completion	Choose closure, escalation, Finding, or Tuning; add recommendation and Retest.	Documented deliverable

Practical Checklist

Check and document: Event ID and Provider.
Check and document: Computer, User, and Logon ID.
Check and document: Process, Parent, and Command Line.
Check and document: Source IP, Workstation, and Logon Type.
Check and document: Group/Privilege changes.
Check and document: Sysmon ProcessGuid or SessionGuid.
Specify Time zone, tool version, and collection time.
Save raw data before filtering or modification.
Write what the finding proves and what is still unknown.
Define owner and next action with a due date.

Common Mistakes

Relying on Event ID without fields.
Confusing Logon with the attack source.
Ignoring Logon Type.
Linking Processes by PID alone.
Assuming all PowerShell is malicious.
Closing an event without checking the Domain Controller.

Summary and CTA

Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22: Network Connections and DNS Queries is a topic that connects technical knowledge to work discipline. Start with a question, collect only relevant evidence, maintain context and time, and choose an action that can be justified and re-tested.

In the Cybersecurity & AI track at HPI, these principles are practiced using systems, logs, and labs. A natural progression is to move on to the linked articles, complete the lab exercise, and save the deliverable as part of a professional portfolio.

FAQ

Does Sysmon Event ID 3 and 22 alone prove an attack or vulnerability?

No. It provides a signal or finding that requires context, validation, and an additional source. A professional conclusion relies on a sequence of evidence and conformity to expected behavior.

What to do when some data is missing?

Document the missing data, check for an alternative source, and reduce the level of confidence. Do not fill in fields with speculation or present Unknown as legitimate.

How long should evidence be retained?

The retention time depends on policy, regulation, cost, and event type. It is important to pre-define Retention, Legal hold, and the ability to export evidence in a verifiable format.

How to practice without risking a real system?

Use virtual machines, simulated data, CTF, or a dedicated lab. In authorized tests, define Scope, Stop conditions, and backup before starting work.