codyswanngt/lisa-security-review

Security Review

Identify vulnerabilities, evaluate threats, and recommend mitigations for code changes.

Analysis Process

1. Read affected files -- understand current security posture of the code being changed
2. STRIDE analysis -- evaluate Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege risks
3. Check input validation -- are user inputs sanitized at system boundaries?
4. Check secrets handling -- are credentials, tokens, or API keys exposed in code, logs, or error messages?
5. Check auth/authz -- are access controls properly enforced for new endpoints or features?
6. Review dependencies -- do new dependencies introduce known vulnerabilities?

The impact-or-exploitability bar

Severity is earned, not pattern-matched. Every security-shaped finding is classified mechanically, before it is written up:

| Field | What it holds | |-------|---------------| | reproducer | an evidence ref of a kind that reaches the claim's boundary, or none | | impact | a bounded impact/exploitability statement (who can do what, to what data, under what preconditions), or unproven | | reason | one line saying why the finding landed in its bucket |

The bar: a finding is proven only when it carries both a reproducer and a bounded impact statement. Missing either ⇒ unproven. No other input changes the bucket.

What counts as a reaching reproducer is defined by the claim-evidence-mapping contract (BCE-1, #1835), not here: an injection claim at the http-api boundary needs an http-transcript; a UI claim needs a screenshot or recording. A passing unit test-run-log reaches code-unit only and never discharges either.

Each field stands on its own. The two halves are recorded independently: a finding with a bounded impact but no reproducer keeps its impact statement verbatim and only reproducer reads none; a finding with a reproducer but no bounded impact keeps the evidence ref and only impact reads unproven. Never overwrite a field you actually have with a missing-value placeholder — the reason line names which half is missing, and the surviving half is the head start the next reviewer needs.

The two buckets — conservative by default

Findings render in two clearly-labeled buckets: Security (proven) and Security (unproven).

A reproducer-less finding stays in the security section, labeled unproven with its reason. It is never auto-demoted to a maintenance bucket and it is not removed from the report — under-reporting a real vulnerability is the worse failure, so the conservative default keeps it visible where a security reader looks.

Single policy point. The unproven bucket's label is the only thing an owner may change: security.review.unprovenBucket in .lisa.config.json, default security-unproven. An owner who prefers true demotion sets it to a maintenance label; the finding then renders under that bucket and no other classification logic changes — the bar, the fields, and the reasons are identical.

Write both buckets in operator voice (factory-model rule 5): a person who does not code reads this at the gate. "Anyone who can reach the search box can read other customers' orders — reproduced with the request transcript below" is usable; "possible SQLi in handler" is not.

This bar governs code-review security findings. Dependency CVE remediation keeps its own decision ladder in the security-audit-handling rule — cite it, do not restate or fork it.

Bucketing is advisory — it shapes the report, it does not block a merge — on the same terms as the boundary checks, which stay reporting-only until verification.gate.enforceBoundaries is true in .lisa.config.json.

Output Format

Structure findings as:

## Security Analysis

### Threat Model (STRIDE)
| Threat | Applies? | Description | Mitigation |
|--------|----------|-------------|------------|
| Spoofing | Yes/No | ... | ... |
| Tampering | Yes/No | ... | ... |
| Repudiation | Yes/No | ... | ... |
| Info Disclosure | Yes/No | ... | ... |
| Denial of Service | Yes/No | ... | ... |
| Elevation of Privilege | Yes/No | ... | ... |

### Security Checklist
- [ ] Input validation at system boundaries
- [ ] No secrets in code or logs
- [ ] Auth/authz enforced on new endpoints
- [ ] No SQL/NoSQL injection vectors
- [ ] No XSS vectors in user-facing output
- [ ] Dependencies free of known CVEs

### Security (proven)
- [finding] -- where in the code, how to prevent
  - reproducer: [evidence ref, e.g. evidence/<ticket>/http-transcript-01.txt]
  - impact: [who can do what, to what data, under what preconditions]
  - reason: reproducer + bounded impact

### Security (unproven)
- [finding] -- where in the code, how to prevent
  - reproducer: [evidence ref if one exists, else `none`]
  - impact: [bounded statement if one exists, else `unproven`]
  - reason: [which half is missing -- e.g. "impact bounded, but never reproduced"]
    -- kept in the security section, not demoted

### Recommendations
- [recommendation] -- priority (critical/warning/suggestion)

Rename the unproven heading only when security.review.unprovenBucket is set to something other than security-unproven; everything else stays as written.

Rules

• Focus on the specific changes proposed, not a full security audit of the entire codebase
• Flag only real risks -- do not invent hypothetical threats for internal tooling with no user input
• Classify every finding against the bar before writing it up; never leave a finding unbucketed
• Never silently drop or downgrade a finding out of the security section -- unproven is the conservative landing spot, and the reason line says why
• Prioritize OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities
• If the changes are purely internal (config, refactoring, docs), report "No security concerns" and explain why
• Always check .gitleaksignore patterns to understand what secrets scanning is already in place