security-assessment

name

security-assessment

description

Assess a reported security vulnerability in GAIA and fill a PSIRT / JIRA triage: decide if it is valid & exploitable, whether it needs a CVE + bulletin, and produce the CVSS 4.0 score, CWE, and CVE description. Use when triaging a researcher report, a security advisory, or a claude-security-audit finding — anytime you must answer 'is this a CVE?' or produce a CVSS score/vector/severity. Always COMPUTES the score from a reviewed vector with util/cvss4.py (matches the FIRST 4.0 calculator); never guess the number — an LLM's guessed CVSS number is untrustworthy.

Security Assessment (PSIRT / CVSS triage)

For scoring a reported GAIA vulnerability and filling the PSIRT triage template. The one hard rule: the CVSS number is arithmetic on a reviewed vector, never a guess.

Rule 0 — never guess a CVSS score. Compute it.

The vector is the human judgment call. The number is math. Pick the vector, then run:

python util/cvss4.py "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N"
# -> {"vector": "...", "base_score": 5.3, "severity": "Medium"}

util/cvss4.py is a thin, tested wrapper over the cvss pip package (in the [dev] extra) whose 4.0 output matches https://www.first.org/cvss/calculator/4.0 exactly (anchored in tests/unit/test_cvss4.py). A malformed vector is a loud ValueError, never a silent 0.0.

Why this rule exists (real GAIA cases):

• An AI triage on the find -exec ticket asserted "CVSS 6.9 Medium" for the vector CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N — which actually computes to 8.4 High.
• The security-audit workflow's prior anchor: a triage guessed 7.3 for a vector that scores 8.7.

Guessed numbers are off by a full severity band. Always run the tool and quote its output.

The GAIA vector rubric (which metric to pick)

This mirrors the rubric baked into .github/workflows/claude-security-audit.yml (keep the two consistent). Full form: CVSS:4.0/AV:_/AC:_/AT:_/PR:_/UI:_/VC:_/VI:_/VA:_/SC:_/SI:_/SA:_.

• AV — Network only if untrusted data crosses a network boundary to reach the sink (hub artifact, HTTP request). A local CLI/file input on the same host is Local.
• AC — Low unless a real, specific condition (not just "attacker must try") is needed.
• AT — Present if exploitation needs a precondition outside the attacker's control (a specific agent installed, victim points at a non-default hub); else None.
• PR — None unless GAIA privilege/auth is required to trigger it.
• UI — This is where GAIA agent-tool findings usually turn. Active if the user must click through a warning or approve a confirmation-gated tool (TOOLS_REQUIRING_CONFIRMATION); Passive if they must merely initiate a command/install; None only if fully automatic. Most run_shell_command / write-tool findings are UI:A because the operator sees and approves the literal command first.
• VC disclosure/reads · VI writes/tampering · VA crash/DoS. Set the subsequent scope metrics (SC/SI/SA) only if the impact escapes into a separate security scope (VM, container, downstream client) — an in-process capability gain does not.

Incremental-impact check: score the capability the finding adds, not what the tool could already do. The find -exec bypass's novel gain is write/delete/exec (VI/VA); file reads were already reachable via other whitelisted commands under the same path controls, so its VC is Low, not High. Overstating VC:H is what pushed the AI vector to a High score for a Medium-in-practice issue.

The confirmation gate changes the answer to "is this a CVE?"

Many GAIA agent tools are gated behind explicit per-command user approval (TOOLS_REQUIRING_CONFIRMATION in src/gaia/agents/base/agent.py). When the user sees and approves the literal command before it runs, that human-approval step is the real security boundary. A bypass of a secondary control (e.g. an incomplete command allowlist) layered on top of an intact primary control is defense-in-depth hardening, not a standalone exploitable vulnerability — it typically does not warrant a CVE + public bulletin.

Check before deciding:

• Is the tool in TOOLS_REQUIRING_CONFIRMATION? (grep it.)
• Does it get denied in non-interactive mode, or only run under an opt-in like GAIA_AUTO_APPROVE_TOOLS=1? The opt-in is a documented, user-accepted risk.
• Is there a code path (API server, programmatic SDK) that skips the gate? If yes, the gate is not universal and the CVE bar may be met after all — verify, don't assume.

Fix it regardless (defense-in-depth), but let the gate drive the CVE decision.

CWE — name the root cause, not the impact

Rank the root cause first, the consequence second. For the find -exec bypass: CWE-184 (Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs) is the root cause (the allowlist check is incomplete); CWE-78 (OS Command Injection) is only the consequence. An AI triage that leads with CWE-78 has described the symptom, not the defect.

Filling the PSIRT / JIRA triage

Answer in this order (the template PSIRT sends):

1. Valid, exploitable vulnerability? Yes/No — be honest about the bypass even if a gate limits it; qualify exploitability rather than denying the weakness.
2. Needs a CVE ID + public Security Bulletin? Yes/No — apply the confirmation-gate test above. If No, state whether a security brief is required (usually optional).
3. If new CVE: CVSS 4.0 (Score + Vector — from util/cvss4.py, not guessed), CWE (root-cause first), and CVE description in the required shape: <Weakness> in <component> could allow <attacker> to <exploit> potentially resulting in <CIA>.
4. Mitigation delivery / AMD deliverables — for a GAIA code fix this is the amd-gaia package (PyPI + GitHub) only; None for PI / SEV FW / uCode / ROCm / Radeon / Adrenalin / uProf / Chipset drivers. Not a Linux-upstream issue.

Then move the JIRA ticket Opened → Assessed.

Worked example — the find -exec triage (2026-07)

Vector	util/cvss4.py says	Note
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N	8.4 High	the AI's vector — it claimed 6.9
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N	5.3 Medium	corrected: UI:A (approval gate), VC:L (reads already possible), VA:H (-delete)

Both rows are complete vectors — paste either straight into util/cvss4.py.

Outcome: valid weakness, No CVE (confirmation gate is the real boundary), fixed as hardening in PR #2740. The corrected vector — computed, not guessed — lands a full band below the AI's assertion.

Writing it up

The triage you hand back follows CLAUDE.md → How You Communicate: open with the verdict in plain words — is it real, is it exploitable, does it need a CVE — then the CVSS vector, CWE, and evidence underneath. A reviewer deciding whether to file should not have to parse the vector string to learn the answer. State the computed score, never a guessed one.