| name | codebase-security-audit |
| description | End-to-end codebase security audit using the practical eight-layer model - secrets scanning (regex + entropy), SAST (with taint analysis), SCA (deps + license), data-flow / taint, semantic / code-property-graph, IaC, custom rules, and DAST validation. Produces a severity-ranked remediation plan, .env templates, and a ready-to-use CI/CD continuous-scanning workflow. Covers OWASP Top 10 (2021) A01-A10 with curated ripgrep playbooks per category. Use when the user asks to "security audit", "harden this repo", "check for secrets", "find committed secrets", "OWASP audit", "SAST scan", "SCA / dependency audit", "IaC audit", "DAST validation", or "check for vulnerabilities". |
Codebase Security Audit & Remediation
A systematic, multi-layer security review with actionable fixes. Combines static (SAST), composition (SCA), secrets, data-flow / taint, semantic / CPG, infrastructure (IaC), custom rules, and dynamic (DAST) checks - and wires the results into CI/CD for continuous coverage.
Companion rules:
310-security.mdc - principles + OWASP Top 10 + NHI Top 10
316-zero-trust.mdc - Zero Trust principles (always-on)
160-github-actions.mdc - secure CI workflow patterns
When to invoke
Use when the user asks to:
- "Security audit" / "harden this repo" / "check for vulnerabilities"
- "Find committed secrets" / "scan for credentials"
- "OWASP audit" / "Top 10 review"
- "SAST scan" / "SCA / dependency audit" / "IaC audit" / "DAST validation"
- "Set up continuous security scanning"
- Open / re-open a security incident triage on a codebase
Tooling Stack - Eight Practical Layers
Map every audit to these eight layers so coverage is explicit and gaps are visible.
| # | Layer | Purpose | Recommended Tools |
|---|
| 1 | Secrets scanning | Find exposed credentials in code & git history (regex + entropy) | gitleaks, trufflehog, detect-secrets, ggshield, ripgrep regex |
| 2 | SAST (static) | Code-level vulns - injection, crypto, access control | semgrep, codeql, bandit (Python), gosec (Go), eslint-plugin-security (JS/TS), spotbugs + find-sec-bugs (Java), brakeman (Ruby), cppcheck / flawfinder (C/C++) |
| 3 | SCA (deps) | Vulnerable / outdated / license-risky packages | pip-audit, safety, npm audit, yarn audit, govulncheck, mvn dependency-check, osv-scanner, grype, trivy fs, Snyk, Dependabot / Renovate |
| 4 | Data-flow / taint | Track untrusted input through code to a dangerous sink | semgrep (mode: taint), CodeQL data-flow libs, Pysa (Python) |
| 5 | Semantic / CPG | Behavior-aware deep analysis - privilege escalation, auth bypass | CodeQL (full DB build), Joern |
| 6 | IaC scanning | Misconfig in Terraform / K8s / cloud / Dockerfiles | checkov, tfsec, terrascan, kube-linter, kubesec, kics, trivy config, hadolint |
| 7 | Custom rules | Business-specific risks the off-the-shelf rules miss | Semgrep custom rules in .semgrep/, CodeQL custom queries in .github/codeql/ |
| 8 | DAST (dynamic) | Validate runtime behavior on the deployed app | OWASP ZAP, Nuclei, Burp Suite, sqlmap (targeted) |
Accuracy Principles (apply to every layer)
- Data-flow > regex for code-level findings - taint analysis cuts false positives sharply.
- Combine multiple scanners - overlap = confidence; gaps = blind spots.
- Prioritize exploitability, not just presence - internet-reachable + sensitive data + auth boundary crossed = top.
- Tune rules - suppress justified false positives with file-scoped comments (
# nosec, // semgrep-ignore) and track them in an exception register.
- Keep vuln databases fresh - refresh OSV / GitHub Advisory feeds at least daily; pin scanner versions in CI.
- Run continuously in CI/CD - every PR, every merge, every deploy. Block on Critical/High; warn on Medium.
Audit Workflow
Phase 1 - Secrets Scanning (regex + entropy + history)
Combine regex (catches known formats) with entropy and verified-secret scanning (catches unknown formats).
1a. Regex scan of the current tree
PATTERNS = [
r'(?i)(api[_-]?key|apikey)\s*[=:]\s*["\']?[\w\-]{20,}',
r'(?i)(secret|password|passwd|pwd)\s*[=:]\s*["\']?[^\s"\']{8,}',
r'(?i)(token|bearer)\s*[=:]\s*["\']?[\w\-\.]{20,}',
r'(?i)(aws_access_key_id)\s*[=:]\s*[A-Z0-9]{20}',
r'(?i)(aws_secret_access_key)\s*[=:]\s*[\w/+=]{40}',
r'ghp_[A-Za-z0-9]{36}',
r'xox[bpors]-[\w\-]{10,}',
r'<BEGIN_MARKER>(RSA |EC |DSA )?<KEY_MARKER>',
r'jdbc:[\w]+://[^\s"]+',
r'mongodb(\+srv)?://[^\s"]+',
r'https?://[\w:]+@',
]
rg --no-heading -n '<pattern>' --glob '!node_modules' --glob '!.git' --glob '!*.min.js'
1b. Entropy & verified-secret scan
gitleaks detect --redact --no-banner --report-format json --report-path gitleaks.json
trufflehog filesystem --json --no-update . > trufflehog.json
trufflehog git file://. --since-commit HEAD~500 --json > trufflehog-history.json
detect-secrets scan --all-files > .secrets.baseline
1c. Git history scan (deep)
git log --all --diff-filter=A -p -- '*.env' '*.pem' '*.key' 'credentials*' 'config/secrets*'
KEY_MARKER="<KEY_MARKER>"
git log --all -p -S "$KEY_MARKER" --
git log --all -p -S 'password' -- '*.py' '*.js' '*.yaml' '*.json' '*.yml'
gitleaks detect --log-opts="--all"
For each finding capture: commit hash, date, author, file path, whether the secret was later removed, and (if a tool reports it) whether the secret has been verified as live.
Exclude known false positives: test fixtures, documentation examples, placeholder values like your-key-here.
Phase 2 - Software Composition Analysis (SCA)
Most real-world vulns come from libraries. Run scanners per ecosystem, then prioritize by exploitability.
2a. Per-ecosystem dependency scanners
pip-audit --strict
safety check --full-report
npm audit --omit=dev
yarn audit --groups dependencies
govulncheck ./...
mvn org.owasp:dependency-check-maven:check
gradle dependencyCheckAnalyze
bundle audit check --update
cargo audit
dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive
osv-scanner --recursive .
grype dir:.
trivy fs --scanners vuln,license,secret .
2b. License risk
trivy fs --scanners license .
Flag copyleft / non-commercial / unknown licenses on dependencies that ship in the product.
2c. Prioritization
Rank findings in this order:
- Exploitability - known exploited (CISA KEV), reachable from network, reachable code path.
- Severity - CVSS >= 7.0 first, but use EPSS percentile when available.
- Fix availability - patched version exists -> fix now.
- Blast radius - service-tier, data sensitivity.
Output one row per finding: package@version, CVE/GHSA, CVSS, EPSS, fixed-in, license, ecosystem, severity, recommended action (upgrade / pin / replace / accept-with-justification).
Automate with Dependabot / Renovate for routine bumps; subscribe to GitHub Security Advisories per repo.
Phase 3 - SAST (Static Application Security Testing)
Three sub-layers: quick code-smell review, an OWASP Top 10 curated catalog, and tool-driven SAST.
3a. Code Smell Review (quick pass)
| Issue | What to Look For |
|---|
| Hardcoded URLs | Base URLs, API endpoints that vary by environment |
| Hardcoded IDs | Cloud account IDs, org IDs, project IDs |
| Debug flags | DEBUG = True, verbose logging in production code |
| Insecure defaults | verify=False, allow_all_origins, disabled auth |
| Missing input validation | User input passed directly to queries/commands |
| Overly broad exceptions | except Exception: pass hiding errors |
3b. OWASP Top 10 (2021) Curated Checklist
For full operational depth (per-OWASP-category ripgrep snippets and fixes), see references/owasp-top-10-playbook.md.
Quick pointers per category:
- A01 Broken Access Control - server-side authz on every route; CORS allow-list; IDOR ownership checks.
- A02 Cryptographic Failures - argon2/bcrypt for passwords; TLS verify on; AES-GCM with random IVs; KMS for keys; redact PII before logging.
- A03 Injection - parameterized queries; allow-list shell args; never
eval/exec; auto-escaping templates.
- A04 Insecure Design - rate limits + lockouts; abuse cases; idempotency keys.
- A05 Security Misconfiguration - debug off in prod; least-privilege IAM; security headers; lock down management endpoints.
- A06 Vulnerable Components - covered by Phase 2 (SCA).
- A07 AuthN Failures - strong password policy (NIST 800-63B); HttpOnly/Secure/SameSite cookies; validate JWT alg/exp/iss/aud; MFA.
- A08 Software/Data Integrity Failures - safe yaml load; never pickle untrusted; sign artifacts (Sigstore/cosign); pin GitHub Actions by SHA.
- A09 Logging/Monitoring Failures - structured logs to SIEM; alerts on auth-failure spikes and admin actions.
- A10 SSRF - destination allow-list; block RFC1918/link-local/cloud-metadata; egress proxy with policy.
3c. Language-aware SAST tools
bandit -r . -ll -ii -f json -o bandit.json
gosec -fmt=json -out=gosec.json ./...
eslint --ext .js,.jsx,.ts,.tsx --plugin security --rule 'security/detect-eval-with-expression:error' .
spotbugs -textui -include findsecbugs-include.xml -output spotbugs.xml target/classes
brakeman -o brakeman.json --format json
flawfinder --html .
psalm --taint-analysis
3d. Multi-language SAST: Semgrep
semgrep --config=p/security-audit \
--config=p/owasp-top-ten \
--config=p/secrets \
--config=p/cwe-top-25 \
--json --output=semgrep.json .
Run language-specific packs as needed: p/python, p/javascript, p/typescript, p/golang, p/java, p/ruby, p/csharp, p/terraform, p/dockerfile, p/kubernetes.
Phase 4 - Data-Flow / Taint Analysis
Tracks untrusted source -> dangerous sink; the single biggest precision boost over regex SAST.
Semgrep taint mode (lightweight, fast)
rules:
- id: sql-injection-taint
mode: taint
pattern-sources:
- patterns:
- pattern-either:
- pattern: request.args.get(...)
- pattern: request.json[...]
- pattern: request.form[...]
pattern-sinks:
- pattern-either:
- pattern: $CONN.execute($Q, ...)
- pattern: $CONN.cursor().execute($Q, ...)
pattern-sanitizers:
- pattern: sqlalchemy.text($Q).bindparams(...)
message: User input flows into a SQL query without parameterization
languages: [python]
severity: ERROR
Run: semgrep --config .semgrep/ .
CodeQL (deep, GitHub Advanced Security)
codeql database create db --language=python --source-root=.
codeql database analyze db codeql/python-queries:Security \
--format=sarifv2.1.0 --output=codeql.sarif
Use built-in queries python-queries:Security/CWE-089/SqlInjection.ql, etc., or write a custom data-flow query for an app-specific source/sink pair.
Pysa (Python, Meta)
pyre init && pyre analyze --no-verify --save-results-to .pysa-results
Phase 5 - Semantic / Code Property Graph (advanced)
For complex flaws - privilege escalation paths, auth bypass, multi-step exploits. More compute but high precision.
-
CodeQL - full DB build per language; richest query library.
-
Joern - open-source CPG; supports Java, JS, Python, C/C++, Go, Kotlin.
joern-parse .
joern --script audit.sc
Use cases: locate every path from an HTTP entry point that reaches an unauthenticated DB write; locate functions that read is_admin without first calling verify_session.
This phase is optional for small repos but strongly recommended for systems handling auth, payments, PII, or PHI.
Phase 6 - Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) Scanning
If the repo contains Terraform, CloudFormation, Kubernetes manifests, Helm charts, or Dockerfiles.
checkov --directory . --framework all --output json --output-file-path checkov.json
tfsec . --format json --out tfsec.json
terrascan scan -d . -o json > terrascan.json
kube-linter lint .
kubesec scan deployment.yaml
kics scan -p . -o kics.json --report-formats json
hadolint Dockerfile
trivy config .
trivy image <image:tag>
Common IaC findings to flag:
- S3 buckets with
public-read / AllUsers ACL.
- Security groups allowing
0.0.0.0/0 on sensitive ports (22, 3389, 3306, 5432, 6379, 27017, 9200).
- IAM policies with
Action: "*" or Resource: "*".
- K8s pods running as root (
runAsNonRoot: false), without readOnlyRootFilesystem, with privileged: true, with hostNetwork/hostPID.
- K8s missing
NetworkPolicy.
- Dockerfiles using
:latest, running as root, or leaking secrets via ARG.
- Unencrypted storage / databases (
encrypted = false).
- Secrets in env values instead of Secret refs / Vault / KMS.
Phase 7 - Custom Rules (business-specific)
Off-the-shelf rules miss internal frameworks, data classifications, and house auth conventions. This is where the most accurate detections come from.
Place rules at:
- Semgrep:
.semgrep/<rule>.yaml - picked up by semgrep --config .semgrep/.
- CodeQL:
.github/codeql/custom-queries/ - referenced from CodeQL workflow.
Examples to author for any non-trivial repo:
- Internal auth decorator missing - every handler in
routes/ must have @require_auth(scope=...) or @public_endpoint.
- PII fields without redaction - any logger call with a known PII field name (
email, ssn, phone, dob, card_number) must wrap it in redact().
- Internal SDK misuse - internal HTTP client
acme_http.get() must always pass timeout= and verify=True.
- Forbidden imports - block
import requests in modules that should use the internal client; block import pickle in services that accept external input.
- Tenant-scope check - every DB query in a multi-tenant service must include a
tenant_id filter.
Sample Semgrep custom rule: see references/semgrep-custom-rules.md.
Phase 8 - DAST Validation (optional, runtime)
Validates exploitability of SAST findings against the running app. Use against staging, never prod-without-isolation.
docker run -t owasp/zap2docker-stable zap-baseline.py \
-t https://staging.example.com -J zap-baseline.json
docker run -t owasp/zap2docker-stable zap-full-scan.py \
-t https://staging.example.com -J zap-full.json
nuclei -u https://staging.example.com -severity critical,high,medium \
-json -o nuclei.json
sqlmap -u "https://staging.example.com/search?q=1" --batch --risk=2 --level=3
Use DAST to confirm SAST/CodeQL findings (especially A01, A03, A07, A10) and to catch runtime-only issues - TLS config, header drift, error-page leakage, session fixation.
Phase 9 - .gitignore Audit
Verify these entries exist:
# Secrets & local config
.env
.env.*
*.pem
*.key
credentials.json
secrets.yaml
setup-env.sh
run-local.sh
# Scanner output
gitleaks.json
trufflehog*.json
semgrep.json
bandit.json
gosec.json
checkov.json
tfsec.json
trivy*.json
codeql.sarif
.pysa-results/
# IDE & OS
.DS_Store
.idea/
.vscode/settings.json
# Build artifacts
__pycache__/
node_modules/
dist/
*.pyc
Phase 10 - Generate Remediation
.env.template
# Required - GitHub personal access token with repo scope
GITHUB_TOKEN=
# Required - Jira cloud instance ID
JIRA_CLOUD_ID=
# Optional - override default batch size (default: 50)
BATCH_SIZE=50
setup-env.sh
#!/bin/bash
export GITHUB_TOKEN="$(gh auth token)"
export JIRA_CLOUD_ID="your-cloud-id-here"
Add to .gitignore immediately after creation.
Severity & action matrix (exploitability-weighted)
| Severity | Examples | Action |
|---|
| Critical | Active secret in current code; SQLi/cmdi/SSRF reachable from internet; alg:none JWT; eval / pickle.loads on user input; CISA KEV-listed CVE in a public service; public S3 bucket with PII | Rotate any exposed secret, ship a hotfix, add a regression test, file an incident if data may have been accessed |
| High | Secret in git history; OWASP A02/A05/A06/A07/A08 with active exposure; permissive IAM (*/*); outdated dependency with known critical CVE; missing auth on sensitive route; K8s pod running privileged | Rotate the secret; patch in next deploy; consider BFG Repo-Cleaner if repo is shared |
| Medium | Hardcoded config; missing security headers; weak password policy; verbose logs of non-secret data; OWASP A09 gaps; copyleft-license risk on shipped dependency | Externalize to env var / config; add headers and logging in current sprint |
| Low | Code smells, defensive hardening, lint-level issues, unused dependencies | Fix in next commit / backlog |
Map every OWASP / SAST / SCA / IaC / DAST finding to one severity using exploitability + blast radius: data sensitivity, auth boundary crossed, internet-reachable, KEV/EPSS percentile, fix availability.
Phase 11 - Verify
After fixes:
- Re-run secrets scanners (regex + gitleaks + trufflehog) - confirm zero findings.
- Re-run SAST (
semgrep, language tool) - confirm previously flagged patterns no longer match.
- Re-run SCA (
pip-audit / npm audit / govulncheck / osv-scanner / trivy fs) - confirm no Critical/High CVEs.
- Re-run taint / CodeQL queries on the fixed sources/sinks.
- Re-run IaC (
checkov, tfsec, kube-linter).
- Re-run DAST baseline against staging.
- Check
.gitignore covers all sensitive files and scanner output.
- Verify the app still runs with env vars:
source setup-env.sh && python main.py.
Phase 12 - Continuous Scanning in CI/CD
Wire the layers into CI so every PR and merge is scanned automatically. Block on Critical/High; warn on Medium.
A complete reference workflow lives at references/ci-workflow.md. The skeleton:
- secrets - gitleaks + trufflehog (verified-only)
- sast-semgrep - multi-pack semgrep
- sast-bandit - language-specific tool (Bandit for Python; substitute per stack)
- codeql - matrix per language
- sca-trivy + sca-osv + sca-pip-audit (etc per ecosystem)
- dependency-review - PR-only, GitHub-native
- iac - checkov
- dast-staging - main-only, ZAP baseline against staging
Recommended gating:
- PRs: secrets + SAST + SCA + IaC must pass; CodeQL warns.
- Merge to main: above + CodeQL must pass.
- Nightly: re-run SCA against fresh CVE feeds; alert on new Critical/High in unchanged code.
- Post-deploy: DAST baseline against staging.
Git History Remediation
If secrets were committed and the repo has collaborators:
bfg --replace-text passwords.txt repo.git
git filter-repo --invert-paths --path <secret-file>
Always rotate the exposed credentials first - cleaning history alone is not sufficient.
If no collaborators, a simpler approach:
git filter-branch --force --index-filter \
'git rm --cached --ignore-unmatch <file>' HEAD
git push origin --force --all
Output Format
Present findings as a structured report with severity, layer (Secrets / SAST / SCA / Taint / CPG / IaC / DAST / Custom), OWASP ID (where applicable), file:line, evidence, and recommended action. Group by severity (Critical first). Include an executive summary at the top.
## Executive Summary
- Total findings: <N> (Critical: X, High: Y, Medium: Z, Low: W)
- Layer coverage: Secrets ✓ | SAST ✓ | SCA ✓ | Taint ✓ | CPG ✓ | IaC ✓ | DAST ✓ | Custom ✓
- OWASP coverage: A01:_, A02:_, A03:_, A04:_, A05:_, A06:_, A07:_, A08:_, A09:_, A10:_
- Top 3 risks: 1) ... 2) ... 3) ...
- Continuous scanning: <enabled / not-enabled> in CI/CD
## Findings - Critical
| Layer | OWASP | File:Line | Evidence | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## Findings - High / Medium / Low
...
## Layer Coverage Detail
- Secrets: <tools run, files scanned, findings>
- SAST: <tools run, rules used, findings>
- SCA: <ecosystems, advisories DB date, findings>
- Taint: <sources/sinks modeled, findings>
- CPG: <queries run, findings>
- IaC: <frameworks scanned, findings>
- DAST: <target, scan profile, findings>
- Custom: <rule files, findings>
References
Related
- Rule:
310-security.mdc - principles, OWASP Top 10, NHI Top 10
- Rule:
316-zero-trust.mdc - Zero Trust principles (always-on)
- Rule:
160-github-actions.mdc - secure CI patterns
- Rule:
440-docker.mdc, 450-kubernetes.mdc - workload hardening
- Skill:
security-testing - shorter OWASP overview
- Skill:
zero-trust - threat models, HITL gates, MCP hardening
Attribution
Layer model and OWASP playbook adapted from a concrete tool-platform-analysis project audit. The eight-layer framing makes coverage explicit and gaps visible - if you can't tick all eight, you have unknown unknowns.