codyswanngt/lisa-security-zap-scan

OWASP ZAP Baseline Security Scan

Run a ZAP baseline security scan against the local application.

Workflow

1. Check prerequisites:

   • Verify Docker is installed and running: docker info
   • Check if scripts/zap-baseline.sh exists in the project

2. Execute scan:

   • If the script exists, run: bash scripts/zap-baseline.sh
   • If the script does not exist, inform the user that this project does not have a ZAP baseline scan configured

3. Analyze results:

   • After the scan completes, read zap-report.html (or zap-report.md for text)
   • Summarize findings:
     • Total number of alerts by risk level (High, Medium, Low, Informational)
     • Every alert reaches classification -- High, Medium, Low, and Informational alike. Risk level orders the summary; it never filters it. Nothing is dropped before classification, so no alert can leave the report unclassified. Medium+ alerts are listed first, in full (rule ID, name, recommended fix); Low/Informational alerts are still listed, bucketed, and given a reason, even when compressed to one line each.
     • Categorize findings as "infrastructure-level" (fix at CDN/proxy) vs "application-level" (fix in code)

4. Apply the impact-or-exploitability bar -- the same bar the lisa-security-review skill defines; follow that skill, do not restate it. A ZAP alert is not a reproducer by itself: the alert names a pattern, not an exercised impact path.

   • Security (proven) -- the alert carries a reproducer and a bounded impact statement. The reproducer counts only if its evidence kind reaches the claim's boundary under the claim-evidence-mapping contract (BCE-1, #1835): a ZAP request/response transcript is an http-transcript and reaches the http-api boundary only. An alert whose claim is about rendered UI (browser) or persisted state (data) needs evidence at that boundary -- a transcript never proves it.
   • Security (unproven) -- everything else, each with a one-line reason (typically "alert only, no reproducer / no bounded impact", or "transcript does not reach the claim's boundary"). Unproven alerts are not dropped and not demoted out of the security summary -- they render in the unproven bucket so a reader still sees them.
   • Rename the unproven heading only if security.review.unprovenBucket is set to something other than security-unproven; no other classification changes.

5. Handle failures:

   • If the scan failed, explain what failed and suggest concrete remediation steps

Execution

Run the scan now.