dependency-vulnerability-audit

name	dependency-vulnerability-audit
description	Supply chain security audit using CLI vulnerability scanners, license compliance checks, and supply chain risk assessment. Use when auditing project dependencies for known CVEs, license concerns, and supply chain health.
metadata	{"category":"secure_development","subcategory":"supply-chain"}

Dependency Vulnerability Audit

Overview

This skill coordinates supply chain security assessment across three dimensions: vulnerability scanning (via real CLI tools), license compliance, and supply chain risk. It delegates CVE detection to actual vulnerability scanners that use live databases — LLM knowledge has a cutoff and cannot reliably detect recent CVEs.

Scanner-to-Ecosystem Mapping

Manifest	Ecosystem	Scanner	Install
package.json	Node.js	npm audit	Included with Node.js
requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, Pipfile	Python	pip-audit or safety	pip install pip-audit
go.mod	Go	govulncheck	go install golang.org/x/vuln/cmd/govulncheck@latest
Cargo.toml	Rust	cargo audit	cargo install cargo-audit
pom.xml	Java	mvn dependency:analyze	Apache Maven required
Gemfile	Ruby	bundle audit	gem install bundler-audit

Important: Non-zero exit codes from vulnerability scanners indicate findings, not errors. Treat scanner exit code != 0 as "vulnerabilities found," not "command failed."

The INCOMPLETE Verdict

When no scanner is available for the detected ecosystem, the verdict MUST be INCOMPLETE — not PASS. INCOMPLETE honestly represents that the vulnerability check could not be performed. License and supply chain analysis can still run, but CVE data will be missing.

---

CVE Vulnerability Scanning

Severity Categorization

• Critical: RCE, authentication bypass, data exfiltration — must fix before shipping
• High: Significant security impact — should fix soon
• Medium: Limited impact or requires unusual conditions — review and plan fix
• Low: Minimal impact — track but lower priority

For Each Finding, Identify

• Package name and affected version
• CVE/vulnerability ID (e.g., CVE-2024-XXXXX, GHSA-XXXXX)
• Severity (use scanner-reported severity)
• Whether a fixed version is available
• Whether the vulnerable package is a direct dependency or transitive

---

License Compliance

LLM analysis is appropriate for license review since license data is stable (licenses don't change after release) and terms are documented.

License Risk Categories

Category	Licenses	Concern
Copyleft (strong)	GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, AGPL-3.0	May require source disclosure
Copyleft (weak)	LGPL, MPL	Generally OK for linking but review usage
Restricted	Commercial, proprietary, no-license	All rights reserved — legal review needed
Patent risk	Known patent encumbrances	Review IP implications
Permissive (no concern)	MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause, ISC, Unlicense, CC0	No restrictions

What to Flag

• GPL-incompatible license combinations
• Dependencies with unknown licenses (mark for manual verification)
• License changes between versions

---

Supply Chain Risk Assessment

Heuristic analysis — findings require human verification against package registries.

Typosquatting Indicators

• Package names very similar to popular packages (e.g., lodash vs l0dash)
• Unusual character substitutions
• Suspicious name patterns for the ecosystem

Maintenance Health

• Packages known to be unmaintained or deprecated
• Packages with recent ownership transfers
• Packages with known malicious versions in their history

Dependency Sprawl

• Unusually large dependency count for the project type
• Dependencies duplicating functionality of other dependencies
• Dependencies for trivial functionality (single-function packages)

Version Pinning

• Dependencies using exact versions (good) vs. wide ranges (risk)
• Lock file present (good) vs. absent (risk)
• Any dependency using * or latest as version (high risk)

---

Verdict Rules

In priority order:

1. BLOCKED — Any Critical severity CVE found. Mandatory remediation before shipping.
2. INCOMPLETE — No scanner was available. CVE vulnerability data is missing. Cannot report PASS.
3. PASS_WITH_NOTES — No Critical CVEs, but any of: High severity CVEs, license compliance flags, supply chain concerns.
4. PASS — Scanner ran successfully, no CVEs found, no license flags, no supply chain concerns.

Report Structure

# Dependency Audit Report

**Ecosystem:** [ecosystem]
**Manifest:** [manifest path]
**Scanner used:** [scanner name or 'none — INCOMPLETE']

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences on overall security posture]

**Verdict:** [PASS / PASS_WITH_NOTES / BLOCKED / INCOMPLETE]

## Vulnerability Findings
[CVE table by severity: Package | CVE ID | Description | Fixed Version | Direct/Transitive]

## License Compliance
[Flagged dependencies table: Package | License | Concern | Recommendation]

## Supply Chain Risk
[Typosquatting suspects, maintenance concerns, version pinning summary]

## Remediation Priorities

### Immediate (Critical/High vulnerabilities)
[Numbered list with package, CVE, fix command]

### Short-term (Medium vulnerabilities, license concerns)
[Numbered list]

### Monitor (Low vulnerabilities, supply chain flags)
[Numbered list]