security-review

name	security-review
description	Comprehensive security checklist and review patterns for analyzing applications, configurations, and infrastructure. This skill provides structured review methodology to identify vulnerabilities across OWASP Top 10 categories during penetration testing.
origin	openclaw
version	0.2.0.2
compatibility	["openclaw","claude-code","cursor","windsurf"]
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Write","Edit","WebSearch","WebFetch","Agent"]
metadata	{"domain":"assessment","tool_count":0,"guide_count":5,"last_reviewed":"2026-07-26"}

Skill: Security Review

Supplementary Files:

• payloads.md — Security review commands, test payloads, and audit scripts organized by OWASP category
• test-cases.md — Structured test cases for security review checklists covering secrets, input validation, injection, authentication, and data exposure
• guides/ — Deep-dive methodology guides for systematic security auditing

Summary

This skill provides structured review methodology to identify vulnerabilities across OWASP Top 10 categories during penetration testing.

Domain: assessment

Description

Comprehensive security checklist and review patterns for analyzing applications, configurations, and infrastructure. This skill provides structured review methodology to identify vulnerabilities across OWASP Top 10 categories during penetration testing.

Difference from security-bounty-hunter: bounty-hunter focuses on finding single exploitable vulnerabilities for reporting. This skill provides a systematic review framework to audit an entire application or system comprehensively.

Use Cases

• Pre-engagement security review of target application architecture
• Source code audit during white-box penetration testing
• Configuration review of infrastructure (servers, containers, cloud services)
• Security assessment of authentication and authorization mechanisms
• Reviewing third-party integrations and API security
• Post-exploitation analysis of discovered credentials and secrets

Core Tools

Tool	Category	Purpose
Semgrep	SAST	Multi-language pattern-based code scanning
CodeQL	SAST	Semantic code analysis (GitHub)
Bandit	SAST (Python)	Python security lint
Snyk Code	SAST	Commercial SAST with dependency scan
SonarQube	SAST	Code quality + security platform
Trivy	Container/FS	Container, filesystem, and IaC scanning
Syft / Grype	SBOM	SBOM generation + vulnerability matching
detect-secrets	Secrets	Pre-commit secret detection (Yelp)
gitleaks	Secrets	Git history secret scanner
semgrep-secret	Secrets	Secret detection rules pack for Semgrep
checkov / tfsec	IaC	Terraform / CloudFormation static analysis
eslint-plugin-security	Lint	JavaScript/TypeScript security rules
CodeSeen / reviewdog	Review	Automated PR review integration

Methodology

Security Review Checklist

1. Secrets Management

Check for:

• Hardcoded API keys, tokens, passwords in source code
• Secrets in configuration files committed to version control
• Default credentials in services and admin panels
• Exposed .env, .git, backup files on web servers
• Secrets in client-side JavaScript, mobile app bundles

Tools:

# Scan for secrets in code
trufflehog filesystem /path/to/repo
gitleaks detect --source /path/to/repo

# Check for exposed files on web server
curl -s http://target/.env
curl -s http://target/.git/HEAD
curl -s http://target/backup.sql
curl -s http://target/config.yml.bak

2. Input Validation

Check for:

• Missing server-side validation (relying on client-side only)
• Unvalidated file uploads (type, size, content)
• Direct use of user input in queries, commands, or templates
• Missing or weak content-type validation
• Insufficient output encoding

3. Injection Flaws

SQL Injection:

• String concatenation in SQL queries
• ORM misuse (raw queries with user input)
• NoSQL injection (MongoDB operator injection)

Command Injection:

• User input passed to system(), exec(), os.popen()
• Unsanitized filenames in file operations
• Unsafe deserialization (pickle, YAML, JSON with revivers)

LDAP Injection:

• User input in LDAP filters without escaping

Template Injection:

• User input in template engines (Jinja2, Twig, Freemarker)

4. Authentication & Authorization

Authentication:

• Weak password policies (length, complexity, rotation)
• Missing multi-factor authentication for sensitive operations
• Session management flaws (fixation, hijacking)
• Token storage (localStorage vs httpOnly cookies)
• OAuth/SAML misconfiguration

Authorization:

• Missing role-based access control
• Insecure direct object references (IDOR)
• Missing authorization checks on API endpoints
• Privilege escalation paths

5. Security Headers & Transport

# Verify security headers
curl -sI http://target | grep -i "strict-transport\|content-security\|x-frame\|x-content-type\|x-xss"

# Check TLS configuration
nmap --script ssl-enum-ciphers -p 443 target
sslyze --regular target

6. API Security

Check for:

• Missing rate limiting on API endpoints
• Excessive data in API responses (over-fetching)
• Missing input validation on API parameters
• Improper error handling leaking internal state
• API versioning and deprecation security

7. Dependency Security

# Audit dependencies
npm audit
pip-audit
cargo audit

# Check for known vulnerabilities
snyk test
grype /path/to/image
trivy image target-image:tag

Review Workflow

Step 1: Surface Mapping

• Identify all entry points (web, API, file upload, webhooks)
• Map authentication boundaries
• Identify data flows and storage locations

Step 2: Prioritized Review

1. Authentication and session management
2. Authorization and access control
3. Input validation and injection points
4. Secrets and sensitive data handling
5. Security headers and transport
6. Dependencies and third-party components

Step 3: Evidence Collection

• Document each finding with: location, severity, reproduction steps
• Capture screenshots and HTTP requests/responses
• Map findings to OWASP Top 10 and CWE classifications

Step 4: Report

• Executive summary with risk ratings
• Detailed findings with evidence
• Remediation recommendations prioritized by severity

Severity Classification

Level	Criteria	Action
CRITICAL	Remote code execution, data breach, auth bypass	Immediate remediation
HIGH	Significant data exposure, privilege escalation	Remediate before release
MEDIUM	Limited data exposure, misconfiguration	Plan remediation
LOW	Information leakage, minor misconfiguration	Address when convenient
INFO	Best practice deviation, no direct exploit	Document for improvement

Defense Perspective

• Defense in depth: Each layer should independently prevent unauthorized access
• Least privilege: Grant minimum necessary permissions
• Secure defaults: Default configurations should be secure, not permissive
• Fail closed: Errors should deny access, not grant it

Detection Methods

Security Review Audit

• Code review metrics: Review depth, finding density, false positive rate.
• Architecture review: Threat model coverage (STRIDE, PASTA).
• Penetration test: Coverage of OWASP Top 10, API Top 10, ATT&CK.

SIEM Detection Rules

• Splunk SPL: index=code:review | stats count by reviewer | where count > 100
• GitHub Advanced Security: CodeQL, secret scanning in PRs.

Defense Evasion Techniques

Operational Security for Reviewers

• Verify findings: Independent reproduction before reporting.
• Provide actionable remediation: Don't just identify problems; suggest fixes.
• Map to MITRE ATT&CK: Standardized framework for cross-org understanding.

Orchestration

ECC Loop Pattern: Sequential Pipeline

surface map → prioritized review → evidence collection → report

Rationale: Security reviews require systematic coverage following a defined checklist order. Each phase builds on the previous one — surface mapping identifies entry points, prioritized review allocates effort by risk, evidence collection captures reproducible findings, and report generation delivers actionable results.

Integration:

• repo-scan — codebase classification and attack surface identification (provides input for surface mapping phase)
• terminal-ops — evidence capture via curl, nmap, and tool output recording
• verification-loop — finding confirmation through independent retesting

Cross-Skill Pipeline:

repo-scan → security-review → verification-loop → chronicle

repo-san classifies the codebase and identifies high-value targets, security-review performs systematic OWASP audit, verification-loop confirms findings independently, chronicle archives the final report.

Quality Gate:

• Pre-condition: Target scope defined with rules of engagement documented
• Post-condition: All OWASP Top 10 categories assessed with findings documented
• Verification: Findings independently confirmed through reproduction and retesting

Report Template

# Security Review Report
*Target: [system/application] | Date: [date] | Scope: [boundaries]*

## Executive Summary
[Overall risk rating and key findings]

## Findings

### [SEVERITY] [Title]
- **CWE**: [CWE-ID]
- **OWASP**: [Category]
- **Location**: [file/endpoint]
- **Description**: [what was found]
- **Evidence**: [reproduction steps]
- **Impact**: [what attacker can achieve]
- **Remediation**: [how to fix]

## Summary Statistics
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | N |
| High | N |
| Medium | N |
| Low | N |
| Info | N |