openai-codex-security-attack-path-analysis

name	openai--codex-security--attack-path-analysis
description	Use when Codex is already in the attack-path-analysis phase of a security scan or the user explicitly asks to trace a security finding from source to sink and calibrate severity. Do not use as the primary trigger for full PR, commit, branch, patch, or repository scans.
origin	openai/plugins — codex-security/attack-path-analysis (MIT)
license	MIT
version	0.1.0
compatibility	yana-ai >= 0.14.0

Security Attack Path Analysis

Objective

Turn validated or still-plausible findings into explicit attacker stories, structured attack-path analysis facts, severity calibration, and a final reportability decision grounded in the threat model.

Artifact Resolution

The path references in this skill are the default locations for this phase. If the user explicitly provides a different path for a required input or output, use the user-provided path instead of the corresponding default path referenced in this skill. If a required input is still missing, stop and ask the user for it before continuing. Use the shared scan artifact path conventions in ../../references/scan-artifacts.md.

Workflow

1. Load the per-scan threat model path from ../../references/scan-artifacts.md as the repo-specific threat-model source of truth. Start from this along with the potential findings. Both inputs are required for this workflow.
   • For repository-wide and scoped-path scans, include validation closure rows marked reportable or survives: yes even if they were not assigned polished candidate numbers during discovery.
2. Determine whether the affected code is in scope for the repository threat model and whether it belongs to a real product surface or real production workflow.
3. Build a factual attack path using repository evidence only:
   • service mapping
   • exposure and entry points
   • identity, privilege, and trust boundaries
   • secrets handling and sensitive-data flow
   • reachability
   • existing controls and mitigations
4. Before finalizing scope or reportability-driving facts, identify the strongest repository counterevidence against the key scoping fields and explain why it is or is not dispositive.
5. Calibrate impact and likelihood from the repository evidence.
6. Apply a separate final policy-adjustment pass mechanically using those facts and the calibrated severity.
7. Drop any candidate whose final policy decision is ignore.
8. Save that finding's visible attack-path report to its per-finding attack-path analysis report path from ../../references/scan-artifacts.md.
9. Append one attack-path receipt per candidate id to that finding's candidate ledger path from ../../references/scan-artifacts.md. The receipt must record the candidate id, attack-path reportability decision, attack-path facts or exact proof gap, and attack-path artifact/report reference for that candidate finding.

Scope and Attack Path Checklist

Use this checklist before finalizing the attack-path facts or policy decision:

• Determine whether the finding is actually a real security vulnerability rather than a correctness bug or false positive.
• Determine whether the affected code belongs to a real product surface or meaningful production workflow.
• Map the relevant service, component, or workflow context from repository evidence.
• Establish exposure and entry points from repository evidence such as listeners, ingress, load balancers, service ports, manifests, routing, or network policy.
• Establish identities, privileges, and trust boundaries that matter for the path.
• Establish whether sensitive data, secrets references, or privileged control paths are involved.
• Determine whether a realistic attacker can actually reach and use the issue from an in-scope attack surface.
• Identify the strongest repository counterevidence against the scoping and reportability-driving fields before finalizing them.
• Lower confidence or keep fields unknown when repository evidence is incomplete; do not automatically suppress a finding solely because deployment evidence is missing.

Counterevidence Checklist

For the most interpretive fields, explicitly ask what repository evidence suggests the opposite and why it does or does not defeat the finding:

• In-Scope Status According to the Threat Model
• Vector
• Auth Scope
• Exposure
• Cross-Boundary Behavior
• Preconditions
• Impact Surface

Look specifically for repository evidence that the path is:

• out of scope
• internal-only
• admin-only
• not cross-boundary
• not attacker-reachable
• not meaningfully reportable

Severity and Policy Checklist

Apply severity and policy calibration using references/severity-policy.md.

Output Contract

For each surviving finding include:

• title
• candidate id, instance key, and ledger row id when provided
• affected lines from validation, preserving labeled entrypoint/wrapper, root_control, sink, and concrete_implementation locations
• attack path steps
• rendered attack-path facts
• counterevidence summary and challenges
• severity calibration
• final policy decision
• enough reasoning that a later reader can understand why the finding survived or was suppressed

Render attack-path facts using references/attack-path-facts.md.

Hard Rules

• Prefer repository evidence first, but use network connectivity when it materially helps confirm deployment context, reachable surfaces, or other reportability-relevant facts.
• Do not invent attack chains that the code does not support.
• Do not leave candidate coverage implicit. Every candidate finding that reaches attack-path analysis must leave an attack-path receipt in its candidate-ledger path from ../../references/scan-artifacts.md, even when the final policy decision is ignore or the path remains deferred.
• Do not drop exact affected locations while converting validated findings into attack paths. Repository-wide seeded/root-control rows that survive validation must keep their root-control file:line even when a wrapper, route, or transport is easier to explain.
• Do not skip a reportable validation row because a neighboring same-family finding has a cleaner story. Either produce attack-path facts for that exact row or make an explicit final policy decision with repository counterevidence.
• Missing public-ingress evidence is not by itself dispositive counterevidence.
• Keep attack-path analysis, severity calibration, and final policy suppression as separate sub-stages.
• Use the final policy-adjustment matrix mechanically rather than re-arguing severity from scratch after the facts are set.
• Save a final visible report for each candidate finding using that finding's attack-path analysis report path from ../../references/scan-artifacts.md.

-- Considerations for attack path --

• A finding should count as a real security issue if a realistic attacker could use it from a reasonable attack surface relevant to the product, especially if it is something that is part of the thread model.
• The attack surface should generally be one that is plausibly exposed to end users / external actors (or another actor explicitly in scope in the threat model), not an arbitrary internal-only or contrived path.

-- Considerations for severity / criticality re-rating --

• For high and above, the impact must be materially security-relevant (for example: account takeover, auth bypass, meaningful privilege escalation, significant sensitive data exposure/exfiltration, credible RCE, or similarly severe compromise), not simply a bug or strange behavior
• For a finding to remain high or critical, the exploitation path and impact should be clear enough that a professional security reviewer would not need a long speculative argument to justify it.
• Do not treat ordinary code bugs as high/critical security issues just because they are bugs or because the scanner labeled them that way.
• Do not keep critical based on contrived, highly speculative, or edge-case-only exploit stories unless the threat model explicitly supports those conditions. Critical DEMANDS attention implying an immediate likely threat.
• Do not keep high/critical for strange configurations or odd codebase behaviors unless there is clear evidence that an in-scope attacker can realistically exploit them for major impact.
• Do not rely on unusual operator mistakes, internal-only access, or non-attacker-reachable code paths to justify severe external impact unless the repository threat model says those actors/paths are in scope.
• If the issue is a real bug but not actually a security vulnerability, classify it as ignore (or if you have to low) for criticality purposes.
• If there actually provable that there is no bug at all (the description is entirely wrong or made up and you actually got that real proof that it is so), then label it as ignore for criticality to mark a false-positive.

Non-exhaustive examples of vulnerabilities that often support critical when evidenced in code and context:

• Credible RCE or arbitrary code execution (command injection, LFI exec, trivial memory corruption exploits, etc); Requires actual proof that attacker input cause this from in-scope attack surface
• Real XSS with meaningful proven impact (for example session/token theft, account compromise, privileged action execution, etc)
• Account takeover or strong authentication bypass, especially if it is 0-click
• Missing authorization checks / authorization bypass / tenant-boundary break (trivial IDOR, easy to swap out org or use ids with no authz, etc)
• Severe sensitive data leak (LFI, path traversal, bad scoping of file downloads, access to data without authorization, trivial side-channels) with realistic attacker access (proof the attacker can read secrets, PII, signing keys, credential stores, private keys, classified or highly confidential information (model weights etc))
• Trivial memory corruption exploits with known exploit patterns which require little effort to exploit
• SQL or other Database or query injection with clear proof of path from attacker input from in-scope attack surface and impact of the injection (leaks sensitive data, inserts dangerous records)
• Sandbox, container, VM, browser, or interpreter escape that breaks an intended isolation boundary
• Server-side-template-injection when it leads to RCE or leaking of secrets; with actual proof that the templating library can be exploited to do this (RCE escape or secrets/credentials in scope); with actual proof that this can be reached from in-scope attack surface
• Arbitrary file write in executable, startup, config, or firmware paths with a realistic path to persistence or code execution. Requires proof that an attacker can actually trigger this from in-scope attack surface.
• Logic flaws that allow irreversible or broad compromise of integrity at scale, such as unauthenticated deletion of other users' data, cross-tenant tampering with sensitive records, or unauthorized modification of security-critical configuration, when the impact is clearly demonstrated and severe enough to be compromise-equivalent; when there is actual proof that this logic can be exercised from in-scope attack-surface.
• etc, other bugs not listed which follow this level of critical severity and impact; with actual proof that these bugs are reachable from in-scope attack-surface.

Non-exhaustive examples of vulnerabilities that often support high when evidenced in code and context:

• Sever Side Request Forgery where there is actual proof of both 1. Attacker can control the url being requested (bypassing protections around that) from in-scope attack-surface and 2. That there are likely other local/lan/cloud services which can be reached to show actual impact. Be careful with reporting webhooks unless there is clear proof that it is dangerous, but do not treat a product-intended webhook/download/callback feature or optional operator allow/deny list as suppression evidence when attacker-controlled destinations can still reach internal, metadata, file-backed, redirect, or side-effecting targets.
• Exploitable memory corruption with clear, major impact or ease of exploitation
• Arbitrary file read that exposes less-sensitive user data or source code (if you have actual proof it reveals env secrets, then it is critical)
• Arbitrary file write in executable, startup, config, or firmware paths with a realistic path to persistence or code execution
• CSRF when it enables important state-changing actions such as credential changes, permission changes, payment / billing changes, security-setting changes, or other materially harmful actions, and the victim interaction required is realistic, and is not mitigated by any of these : same-site strict cookies, auth headers, csrf tokens, PUT/PATCH/DELETE, enforced json request body content type.
• Hardcoded or default credentials that are valid and reachable and give meaningful access, but not sufficiently broad or privileged to justify high.
• Cryptographic failures that allow signature forgery, token forgery, trusted artifact forgery, secure-channel bypass, or decryption of highly sensitive data in a way that directly enables compromise; with actual proof that these are practical attacks and reachable and doable from in-scope attack-surface.
• Supply-chain or update-channel compromise that allows malicious code or malicious trusted artifacts to be delivered to users, servers, agents, or endpoints, including signing bypass or package source substitution with real impact. This should focus on actual supply-chain risk and risk around CI actions, not just "does npm report outdated packages"
• Authorization bypass, IDOR, or privilege escalation that exposes or modifies meaningful sensitive data or privileged functionality, but is narrower in scope, limited to a smaller set of objects, limited to same-tenant boundaries, or otherwise less catastrophic than the critical cases above.
• XXE with clear proof that an attacker can control the XML document through in-scope attack-surface and that the XML engine is vulnerable to XXE
• etc, other bugs not listed which follow this level of high severity and impact; with actual proof that these bugs are reachable from in-scope attack-surface.
• Dangerous upload / file handling issues that enable stored active content, trusted-origin script execution, or meaningful content-type confusion with real security impact; with actual proof that both the upload and access are reachable through in-scope attack-surface.

Strong factors that often push a plausible high up to critical:

• Unauthenticated or near-unauthenticated reachability from the internet or other broad in-scope surfaces.
• 0-click or extremely low-friction exploitation.
• Cross-tenant / cross-boundary impact rather than same-user or same-tenant impact.
• Direct compromise of signing, identity, control-plane, or cloud credentials.
• Realistic persistence, mass exploitation, wormability, or compromise of many victims at once.
• Clear proof of code execution, full account takeover, or crown-jewel secret access rather than only a plausible path.

Examples that usually should not remain high/critical without very strong proof of it leading to the class of vulnerabilities above:

• Generic correctness/reliability bugs
• Strange edge cases with unclear attacker value
• Low-impact information leaks
• Internal-only defects without realistic attacker reachability
• The report shows a bug class in isolation, but not a realistic exploit path.
• The issue requires the attacker to already have privileged, admin, root, console, shell, or code-execution access.
• "Could maybe matter if chained with many assumptions" arguments
• Self-XSS, reflected XSS with only an alert-box proof, or XSS without demonstrated access to sensitive data, session material, privileged actions, or comparable real impact.
• SQLi or other injection claims with no demonstrated attacker control, no shown sink reachability, or only speculative impact.
• CSRF on low-impact actions, cosmetic actions, logout, preferences, or actions requiring unrealistic victim behavior.
• Open redirect, clickjacking, user enumeration, rate-limit weakness, banner leakage, version disclosure, directory listing, stack traces, internal hostnames, or basic error-message leakage, unless they are shown as part of a serious exploit chain.
• Memory corruption that is theoretical, non-triggerable from in-scope input, or not plausibly exploitable in the target environment.
• Missing headers, cookie flags, CSP weaknesses, TLS observations, or crypto hygiene issues without a concrete exploit path and meaningful demonstrated impact.
• Reports that effectively say "this could be dangerous if combined with something else" but do not show the something else.
• Denial of service that is transient, single-user, self-targeting, easy to mitigate, requires disproportionate attacker resources, or does not create severe and realistic business / safety impact.
• Authz findings that require already having the same privilege as the victim, or only expose trivial metadata.
• Bugs that already require admin/root/shell access unless the privilege-escalation delta itself is the issue being reported.
• Arbitrary file read limited to public files, low-sensitivity files, or source fragments with no realistic security consequence.

High/Critical acceptance checklist (all should be true, unless the threat model strongly justifies an exception):

• In-scope component
• Realistic attacker
• Reasonable in-scope attack surface
• Credible exploitation path (not simply speculation)
• Major security impact
• Would likely be accepted as high/critical (not informational/low) in serious audit or bug bounty triage by a major auditing firm who puts their reputation on the line.