external/anthropic-cybersecurity-skills/skills/performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage/SKILL.md
Triage web application vulnerability findings from DAST/SAST scanners using OWASP risk rating methodology to separate true positives from false positives and prioritize remediation.
npx skillsauth add seikaikyo/dash-skills performing-web-application-vulnerability-triageInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Web application vulnerability triage is the process of reviewing findings from DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) and SAST (Static Application Security Testing) tools to validate true positives, dismiss false positives, assign risk ratings using the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology, and prioritize remediation. Effective triage reduces alert fatigue and focuses development teams on the vulnerabilities that matter most.
requests, beautifulsoup4Risk = Likelihood x Impact
| Factor Group | Factor | Description | |-------------|--------|------------| | Threat Agent | Skill Level | How technically skilled is the attacker? | | Threat Agent | Motive | How motivated is the attacker? | | Threat Agent | Opportunity | What resources/access are needed? | | Threat Agent | Size | How large is the potential threat agent group? | | Vulnerability | Ease of Discovery | How easy is it to find the vulnerability? | | Vulnerability | Ease of Exploit | How easy is it to exploit? | | Vulnerability | Awareness | How well known is the vulnerability? | | Vulnerability | Intrusion Detection | How likely is exploitation to be detected? |
| Factor Group | Factor | Description | |-------------|--------|------------| | Technical | Confidentiality | How much data could be disclosed? | | Technical | Integrity | How much data could be corrupted? | | Technical | Availability | How much service could be lost? | | Technical | Accountability | Can actions be traced to attacker? | | Business | Financial Damage | Revenue loss, regulatory fines | | Business | Reputation Damage | Brand trust erosion | | Business | Non-compliance | Regulatory violation exposure | | Business | Privacy Violation | PII/PHI exposure volume |
| | Low Impact (0-3) | Medium Impact (3-6) | High Impact (6-9) | |---|---|---|---| | High Likelihood (6-9) | Medium | High | Critical | | Medium Likelihood (3-6) | Low | Medium | High | | Low Likelihood (0-3) | Note | Low | Medium |
OWASP_TOP_10_2021 = {
"A01": "Broken Access Control",
"A02": "Cryptographic Failures",
"A03": "Injection",
"A04": "Insecure Design",
"A05": "Security Misconfiguration",
"A06": "Vulnerable and Outdated Components",
"A07": "Identification and Authentication Failures",
"A08": "Software and Data Integrity Failures",
"A09": "Security Logging and Monitoring Failures",
"A10": "Server-Side Request Forgery",
}
CWE_TO_OWASP = {
"CWE-79": "A03", # XSS -> Injection
"CWE-89": "A03", # SQL Injection
"CWE-78": "A03", # OS Command Injection
"CWE-352": "A01", # CSRF -> Access Control
"CWE-22": "A01", # Path Traversal
"CWE-200": "A02", # Information Exposure
"CWE-327": "A02", # Weak Cryptography
"CWE-287": "A07", # Authentication Issues
"CWE-918": "A10", # SSRF
"CWE-502": "A08", # Deserialization
"CWE-611": "A05", # XXE -> Misconfiguration
}
def triage_finding(finding):
"""Classify finding as true_positive, false_positive, or needs_review."""
fp_indicators = [
"Content-Security-Policy header not set", # Often informational
"X-Content-Type-Options header missing", # Low severity header
"Cookie without SameSite attribute", # Context dependent
]
for indicator in fp_indicators:
if indicator.lower() in finding.get("title", "").lower():
if finding.get("severity", "").lower() in ("info", "low"):
return "false_positive", "Common informational finding"
# Check for confirmed exploitation evidence
if finding.get("evidence") and finding.get("confidence", "").lower() == "certain":
return "true_positive", "Scanner confirmed exploitation"
# SAST findings need manual code review
if finding.get("source") == "sast":
if finding.get("cwe") in ["CWE-89", "CWE-78", "CWE-79"]:
return "needs_review", "Injection finding requires manual code review"
return "needs_review", "Requires manual validation"
def calculate_risk_score(finding, app_context):
"""Calculate OWASP risk rating for a web application finding."""
# Likelihood factors
likelihood = {
"skill_level": 6 if finding["cwe"] in ["CWE-89", "CWE-79"] else 4,
"motive": 7, # Financial gain
"opportunity": 7 if finding.get("authenticated") == False else 4,
"size": 9 if finding.get("internet_facing") else 4,
"ease_of_discovery": 8 if finding.get("scanner_detected") else 5,
"ease_of_exploit": 7 if finding.get("exploit_available") else 4,
"awareness": 6,
"intrusion_detection": 3 if app_context.get("waf_enabled") else 8,
}
# Impact factors
impact = {
"confidentiality": 9 if "data_exposure" in finding.get("tags", []) else 5,
"integrity": 9 if finding["cwe"] in ["CWE-89", "CWE-78"] else 4,
"availability": 7 if "dos" in finding.get("tags", []) else 2,
"accountability": 3 if app_context.get("logging_enabled") else 7,
"financial": 7 if app_context.get("processes_payments") else 3,
"reputation": 6 if app_context.get("customer_facing") else 2,
"compliance": 8 if app_context.get("pci_scope") else 3,
"privacy": 9 if app_context.get("handles_pii") else 2,
}
likelihood_score = sum(likelihood.values()) / len(likelihood)
impact_score = sum(impact.values()) / len(impact)
risk_score = likelihood_score * impact_score
if risk_score >= 42:
risk_level = "Critical"
elif risk_score >= 24:
risk_level = "High"
elif risk_score >= 12:
risk_level = "Medium"
elif risk_score >= 3:
risk_level = "Low"
else:
risk_level = "Note"
return {
"likelihood_score": round(likelihood_score, 1),
"impact_score": round(impact_score, 1),
"risk_score": round(risk_score, 1),
"risk_level": risk_level,
}
# Process DAST/SAST results through triage pipeline
python3 scripts/process.py \
--input zap_results.json \
--format zap \
--app-context app_config.json \
--output triage_report.json
# Test parameter with single quote
GET /search?q=test' HTTP/1.1
# Test with boolean-based payload
GET /search?q=test' AND 1=1-- HTTP/1.1
GET /search?q=test' AND 1=2-- HTTP/1.1
# Time-based verification
GET /search?q=test'; WAITFOR DELAY '0:0:5'-- HTTP/1.1
# Reflected XSS test
GET /search?q=<script>alert(document.domain)</script> HTTP/1.1
# Check if output is encoded
GET /search?q="><img src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP/1.1
# DOM-based XSS
GET /page#<img src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP/1.1
development
拋棄式 HTML mockup 比稿:產出 2 到 3 個設計立場不同的變體(密度 / 版式 / 強調軸,不是換色),各附取捨說明,最後給有立場的對比結論。適用:「畫個草圖」「比較 A 版 B 版」「先看方向再做」「給我看幾種做法」。要 production 元件或設計已定案時不適用。
tools
需求不明時的意圖萃取訪談:一次一題、每題附上自己的猜測、聽出「真正想要 vs 覺得應該要」,直到能預測使用者反應(約 95% 信心)才動工。適用:需求缺少對象 / 動機 / 成功標準 / 約束,或使用者點名「訪談我」「先確認一下」「我們確定嗎」。明確自足的指示、純資訊查詢、機械性操作不適用。
development
對非平凡決策啟動新鮮 context 對抗審查(找碴不背書),在修正還便宜的時候抓出錯誤方向。適用:高風險改動(production、資安敏感邏輯、不可逆操作)、不熟的程式碼、要宣稱「這樣是安全的 / 可行的」之前。機械性操作與一行修改不適用。
testing
Reference for writing and editing agent skills well — the vocabulary and principles that make a skill predictable. Consult when authoring, reviewing, or pruning a SKILL.md.