owasp-top-10-implementation

name	owasp-top-10-implementation
description	Незаблокирующая проверка по OWASP Top 10 2025 при реализации. Используй для: безопасность, проверь авторизацию, права доступа, секреты, инъекции, XSS, SSRF, цепочка поставок, криптография, заголовки безопасности, CORS. EN triggers: security check, OWASP audit, auth/authz, secrets handling, injection check, XSS prevention, SSRF check, supply chain, crypto, security headers, CORS, secure coding.

OWASP Top 10 Implementation Guidance

Purpose

Keep implementation work security-aware without turning every task into a blocking audit. Use OWASP Top 10 2025 as the awareness baseline, ASVS 5.0.0 as the deeper verification reference, and OWASP secure coding checklist principles for practical coding decisions.

User-facing conversation stays in Russian unless requested otherwise. Repository documentation, code comments, and commit messages stay in English.

When To Use

Use this skill without waiting for explicit invocation when implementation touches:

• Authentication, authorization, sessions, permissions, tenant boundaries, user/admin boundaries, or protected resources.
• API input/output handling, validation, serialization, deserialization, file upload/download, shell/database/template sinks, or external integrations.
• Secrets, credentials, tokens, crypto, sensitive data, logging, error handling, security headers, CORS, CSP, rate limits, or configuration.
• Dependencies, lockfiles, install scripts, CI/CD, container images, generated code, or supply-chain-sensitive changes.
• Any task where the user asks for secure coding, OWASP alignment, security comments, or hardening while implementing.

For explicit security review, audit, vulnerability check, or search for review skill, use the ry-sec-review skill instead or in addition.

Behavior

This skill is advisory and non-blocking. During implementation, surface concise security comments and apply high-confidence fixes when they are clearly in scope. If a risk is real but outside the requested scope, report it as a security comment with file paths and suggested follow-up.

Do not derail the implementation with low-confidence speculation. Do not require a full security review unless the user asks for ry-sec-review or the change touches a high-risk area.

OWASP Top 10 2025 Map

Check the implementation against:

1. A01:2025 Broken Access Control: object ownership, tenant boundaries, role checks, authorization at the server boundary, indirect object access, admin paths.
2. A02:2025 Security Misconfiguration: unsafe defaults, debug flags, permissive CORS, missing security headers, public storage, over-broad cloud/IAM rules, exposed admin surfaces.
3. A03:2025 Software Supply Chain Failures: dependency trust, lockfiles, install scripts, unpinned actions/images, vulnerable packages, untrusted generated code.
4. A04:2025 Cryptographic Failures: weak algorithms, incorrect key handling, plaintext secrets, insecure randomness, missing TLS assumptions, sensitive data exposure.
5. A05:2025 Injection: SQL/NoSQL/LDAP/template/command injection, unsafe eval, shell interpolation, unsafe deserialization, missing parameterization.
6. A06:2025 Insecure Design: missing abuse-case handling, unsafe business logic, race conditions, replay/double-spend, missing rate limits, trust-boundary mistakes.
7. A07:2025 Authentication Failures: session fixation, weak password reset, token lifetime, MFA bypass, confused identity flow, insecure credential storage.
8. A08:2025 Software or Data Integrity Failures: unsafe update paths, unsigned/unverified artifacts, mass assignment, trusted client-controlled state, insecure CI/CD assumptions.
9. A09:2025 Security Logging and Alerting Failures: missing audit events, sensitive logs, weak failure visibility, no alertable signal for authz/authn/security events.
10. A10:2025 Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions: unsafe error paths, leaked stack traces/secrets, fail-open behavior, inconsistent rollback/cleanup, exception-driven bypasses.

Implementation Checklist

When touching a security-relevant surface, check:

• Inputs are validated on a trusted side, canonicalized when needed, and constrained by allowlist, type, length, range, and schema.
• Outputs are encoded or escaped for the exact sink: HTML, attribute, URL, JavaScript, SQL, shell, LDAP, XML, logs, or third-party API.
• Authorization is enforced at the server or trusted boundary and is independent from UI visibility.
• Authentication/session changes use framework primitives, secure cookies, token expiry, rotation where needed, and no localStorage token default for sensitive sessions.
• Secrets never enter repo files, logs, browser-visible payloads, prompts, telemetry, or generated artifacts.
• Database and command interactions use parameterized APIs. Avoid shell execution; if unavoidable, do not concatenate untrusted input.
• File uploads/downloads validate type, size, path, permissions, storage location, and content handling.
• Errors fail closed, avoid sensitive detail, and preserve safe cleanup.
• Security-significant events produce useful logs without logging secrets.
• Dependency/config changes preserve lockfiles, least privilege, pinned versions where appropriate, and safe defaults.
• Tests or checks cover abuse cases when the changed behavior is security-sensitive.

Output

For ordinary implementation, keep security comments short and actionable:

• Security comments: only relevant high-signal notes.
• Applied fixes: security improvements already implemented.
• Residual risks: real risks outside current scope or requiring user decision.
• Suggested verification: exact tests, lint, project security scripts, CI security artifacts, manual checks, or review steps.

If there are no meaningful security notes, say that briefly and do not invent risks.

Anti-patterns

• Inventing risks where there are none ("just to be safe")
• Blocking implementation on low-confidence speculation
• Reporting OWASP categories without code-level evidence
• Skipping authorization checks because "the UI hides it"
• Recommending generic hardening (use HTTPS, validate input) without project-specific scope