analyze-dashboard-vuln

name	analyze-dashboard-vuln
description	Analyze a Wazuh dashboard vulnerability row, decide whether the affected library is reachable in production, fill the sheet's CVSS-Overall→Notes columns, and draft a GitHub issue body. User-invoked. Use when triaging Artifactory CVE rows across the Wazuh dashboard repos, before remediation.

Analyze an Artifactory vulnerability against the Wazuh dashboard repos (and their upstream OpenSearch forks), then produce two things: the sheet row fragment (CVSS Overall Score → Notes) the user pastes back, and a GitHub issue body .md the user creates manually.

The whole analysis turns on one verdict: is the affected library reachable in the production runtime, or only a dev/test/transitive dependency? That verdict is binary and drives every filled column.

Run in two beats: investigate and present findings for confirmation (Beat 1), then — only on the user's "go" — write the artifacts (Beat 2). Never create the GitHub issue yourself; you only write its body to a file and print its title.

Once a row is confirmed affected and the user wants it fixed, hand off to the resolve-cve skill for remediation.

repo-specific (local environment): the Wazuh dashboard repos sit side by side under the workspace root (the parent directory that contains the sibling dashboard checkouts). This repo, wazuh-dashboard, is the platform (upstream OpenSearch-Dashboards). Write scratch files and issue drafts to a git-ignored dir such as tmp/vuln-issues/.

Input

The user pastes one or more tab-separated rows copied from the Artifactory vulnerabilities sheet. Columns through CVSS Base Severity are filled; Tentative release reads Not evaluated or blank, CVSS Overall Score/Severity are blank.

There is a separate sheet per shipped Wazuh version (e.g. a 4.10.4 sheet, a 4.14.5 sheet). That version is the scanned ref — what to inspect to confirm presence. If the user hasn't said which sheet, ask before investigating. The same CVE often recurs across version sheets as separate rows.

Relevant fields per row: CVE ID, GHSA ID, Affected library, Path (e.g. /usr/share/wazuh-dashboard/plugins/securityDashboards/yarn.lock), Affected library version, CVSS Vector, CVSS Base Score, CVSS Base Severity.

Group rows by CVE — one CVE produces one consolidated issue covering every affected repo, plus one row fragment per input row.

Beat 1 — Investigate and report

1. Parse & group. Split rows by tab, group by CVE ID. For each row, map its Path plugin dir to a local repo via the repo map.

2. Pick the refs. Two refs matter and they are different things:

   • Scanned ref = the sheet's Wazuh version. Inspect the release tag v<version> (e.g. v4.10.4); fall back to origin/<version>. Never read the bare local branch — local branches drift from origin and will silently disagree with the scan (a stale 4.10.4 showed 0 handlebars while v4.10.4 had it). Always git fetch first if unsure.
   • Resolution refs = where the finding gets fixed/removed: check origin/5.0.0 and the 5.0.0/main tags to find the release that resolves it (drives Tentative release).

3. Locate + classify (the verdict). On the scanned ref:

   • Read the repo's yarn.lock via git show <ref>:yarn.lock, confirm the library and version match the row.
   • Trace why it is pulled in (yarn why <lib> in the repo, or follow the dependency chain in the lockfile). If every path to it is a devDependency (cypress, mocha, mochawesome, build tooling, etc.) → not affected. If any production dependency pulls it in → affected.
   • Record the dependency chain as evidence.

4. Sweep for extras. grep -rl "<lib>" */**/yarn.lock (or per-repo) across all local dashboard repos to find any repo carrying the library that the pasted rows did not include. Report extras so the user can decide whether to add sheet rows; the issue Description lists the union.

5. Upstream fix status (only if affected). Our repos are forks of opensearch-project/* (map). Read upstream via GitHub (don't clone): check tags/branches and the lockfile at a tag (gh api or raw yarn.lock) to find whether a patched version exists and which OpenSearch release carries it. For dependencies that come straight from upstream's lockfile, link the exact upstream lockfile line as evidence.

Beat 2 — Produce artifacts (on confirmation)

7. Draft the issue body. First dedup: gh issue list --repo wazuh/internal-devel-requests --search "<CVE> in:title" --state all. If one already exists, reuse its URL and skip drafting. Otherwise write the full template to a git-ignored scratch file tmp/vuln-issues/<CVE>.md, reasoning each impact section for this CVE in Wazuh's context and enumerating all affected repos in the Description.

8. Print the issue title + labels for manual creation: title per convention; labels level/task, type/vulnerability.

9. Emit row fragments. One tab-separated line per input row, in input order, containing exactly Overall Score → Notes: <score>\t<severity>\t<tentative>\t<ISSUE_URL>\t<notes>. Leave the literal <ISSUE_URL> placeholder. Leave the Origin column untouched.

Scoring

Binary, no intermediate environmental score:

• affected → Overall Score = Base Score, Overall Severity = Base Severity.
• not affected → Overall Score = 0, Overall Severity = None.

Tentative release

This column tracks the Wazuh release that resolves the finding (the library is patched or removed) — it is independent of the exploitability verdict. A not-affected, dev-only finding still gets the resolving version if the library is bumped/removed there (e.g. handlebars is a non-exploitable devDependency yet its rows read 5.0.0, because it's patched to 4.7.9 in 5.0.0).

• resolved in a known Wazuh release → that version (e.g. 5.0.0). Always a Wazuh version, never an OpenSearch one (Notes may reference the OpenSearch version).
• affected and unfixed anywhere upstream → No fix available yet.
• not affected and nothing tracks a resolution → Not affected.

Version-mapping heuristic (still firming up — surface the reasoning and let the user confirm): fix/bump landing in OpenSearch 3.x → Wazuh 5.0.0; the 4.14.x line tracks OpenSearch ~2.19.x. Confirmed data point: handlebars patched 4.7.9 lands in 5.0.0.

Notes

Terse verdict justification, plus an evidence link when one exists. Patterns:

• not affected → It is a development sub-dependency, therefore it cannot be exploited.
• no fix → OpenSearch <ver> still has the <lib> <ver> version, which is vulnerable. <upstream yarn.lock#Lxxxx>
• fixed → Fixed in Wazuh <ver> (or Fixed in this pr <PR url>).

Repo map

Sheet Path plugin dir → local repo (under the workspace root) → upstream fork source:

Plugin dir in Path	Local repo	Upstream (opensearch-project/…)
securityDashboards	wazuh-security-dashboards-plugin	security-dashboards-plugin
alertingDashboards	wazuh-dashboard-alerting	alerting-dashboards-plugin
notificationsDashboards	wazuh-dashboard-notifications	dashboards-notifications
reportsDashboards	wazuh-dashboard-reporting	dashboards-reporting
(security analytics)	wazuh-dashboard-security-analytics	security-analytics-dashboards-plugin
wazuh, wazuhCore, wazuhCheckUpdates	wazuh-dashboard-plugins	— (Wazuh-owned)
base app / /usr/share/wazuh-dashboard/... core	wazuh-dashboard	OpenSearch-Dashboards

Other OpenSearch plugin dirs (customImportMapDashboards, ganttChartDashboards, indexManagementDashboards, …) may have no Wazuh fork — note that and treat upstream as the source.

Title convention

Artifactory wazuh-dashboard CVE-XXXX-XXXXX — current issues use the umbrella wazuh-dashboard even for a single sub-repo path (matching the sheet's Vulnerability column, which is wazuh-dashboard for this whole sheet). The specific sub-repo and path go in the issue body, not the title.

Issue template

Write this verbatim structure, filling each section for the specific CVE:

# Description

CVE or steps to reproduce.

# Availability impact

Provide a brief description/explanation of how the vulnerability can be used to cause network outages/downtime or impact emergency services.

# Confidentiality impact

Provide a brief description/explanation of how the vulnerability can be used for unauthorized monitoring/disclosure of proprietary/classified systems/information.

# Integrity impact

Provide a brief description/explanation of how the vulnerability can result in theft, destruction, modification or loss of private/sensitive data.

# Exploitability

Provide a brief description of the potential attack scenario, e.g. - how can the vulnerability be exploited?

# Mitigation/Containment plan

Provide details of any workarounds or containment actions that can be taken.

For a not-affected CVE, still produce all six sections (each stating no production impact and why), matching the uuid/xmldom precedent.