Jak używać
- Skopiuj polecenie instalacji i sprawdź źródła przed instalacją we własnym środowisku agenta.
- W oryginale sprawdź wymagane narzędzia, dane dostępowe i obsługiwane środowiska.
- Opisz dane wejściowe i oczekiwany rezultat; porównaj wynik ze źródłami.
npx skills add https://github.com/codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit --skill security-scanPrzed rozpoczęciem
- Instalacja nie obejmuje subskrypcji modelu, limitu API ani uprawnień do plików.
- Gwiazdki i instalacje pokazują aktywność, a nie niezależny test jakości lub bezpieczeństwa.
Treść z repozytorium z zachowaniem nagłówków, przykładów, kodu, tabel, linków i obrazów.
/security-scan — 6-Layer Security Pipeline
What
Runs a defense-in-depth static scan across 6 layers. A project with zero CVEs can still have hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, and missing auth — each layer catches a different vulnerability class. Findings map to the OWASP Top 10:2025 taxonomy and are rated Critical/High/Medium/Low by exploitability, impact, and exposure — a Critical SQL injection on a public endpoint outranks a Low info-disclosure on an admin page.
Detection patterns, OWASP mappings, remediation code, and the report template live in references/scan-layers.md — read it before executing.
Honesty rule: this is static analysis, not a penetration test. It catches known patterns but misses business-logic flaws, complex authorization bypasses, and runtime-only vulnerabilities. Every report states this.
When
- Pre-release security gate — full scan, non-negotiable before production
- "Security scan", "security audit", "find secrets", "CVE check", "OWASP"
- After a dependency update (Layer 1), auth changes (Layer 4), config changes
(Layer 2), or logging changes (Layer 6)
- Pre-pentest preparation — fix static issues before paying for a pentest
- Incident response and quarterly reviews
How
Step 1: Choose Layers
| Scenario | Layers |
|---|---|
| Pre-release gate / pentest prep / incident / quarterly | All 6 |
| After dependency update | 1 |
| New endpoint added | 3, 4, 5 |
| Auth system changes | 4 |
| Config file changes | 2 |
| Logging changes | 6 |
| Public API exposure | 3, 4, 5 |
| Internal-only service | 1, 2, 3 |
Step 2: Execute the Layers
Read references/scan-layers.md for the detection patterns per layer. Delegate deep auth and secrets review to the security-auditor agent, pairing the authentication and configuration skills.
| # | Layer | OWASP 2025 | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Package vulnerabilities | A03 Supply Chain | dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive |
| 2 | Secrets detection | — | Pattern scan over .cs/.json/.yml/.xml/.config |
| 3 | OWASP code patterns | A05 Injection, A08 Integrity, A04 Crypto, A01 Access Control | Source scan: raw SQL, Html.Raw, BinaryFormatter, MD5/SHA1, IDOR |
| 4 | Auth configuration | A07 Authentication, A01 Access Control | get_endpoint_map — every route's auth posture in one call; flag unmarked endpoints; then JWT validation settings |
| 5 | CORS policy | A02 Misconfiguration | Wildcard origins, credentials combos, method/header breadth |
| 6 | Data protection | A04 Crypto, A09 Logging & Alerting | PII in logs, over-broad responses, plaintext sensitive storage |
Step 3: Rate with Context
Severity must match actual risk — over-classification causes alert fatigue and buries the real Critical:
- Test-fixture "secrets" and appsettings.Development.json values are expected —
skip or mark INFO, don't flag as HIGH
- A missing XML comment is never a security finding
- Reserve Critical for exploitable-now issues: injection on public endpoints,
exposed production secrets, auth bypass
Step 4: Report
Every finding: [SEVERITY] file:line — title, OWASP category, what's wrong, impact if exploited, and remediation code (before/after). Produce the summary table + per-layer status table from the reference template, prefixed with the static-analysis disclaimer.
Example
User: /security-scan before we ship
Claude: Running all 6 layers...
| Layer | Status | Findings |
|-------|--------|----------|
| 1. Packages | PASS | 0 CVEs (142 packages incl. transitive) |
| 2. Secrets | PASS | 0 real secrets (2 dev-only values skipped) |
| 3. OWASP Patterns | FAIL | 1 SQL injection |
| 4. Auth Config | WARN | 2 endpoints missing explicit auth attributes |
| 5. CORS | PASS | Explicit origins from configuration |
| 6. Data Protection | WARN | Customer email logged at Information level |
[HIGH] SearchOrders.cs:34 — SQL Injection (A05:2025)
FromSqlRaw($"...LIKE '%{search}%'") → attacker controls the query.
Fix: db.Orders.Where(o => EF.Functions.Like(o.Name, $"%{search}%"))
[MEDIUM] OrderEndpoints.cs:18,31 — no [Authorize]/[AllowAnonymous]; behavior
depends on ambient global policy. Make intent explicit per endpoint.
[LOW] OrderPlacedHandler.cs:22 — PII in logs (A09:2025). Log CustomerId, not email.
Note: static analysis only — this does not replace a penetration test.Related
references/scan-layers.md— detection patterns, OWASP 2025 mappings, report template/verify— Phase 5 runs a lightweight version of this scan per change set/health-check— Dimension 7 (Security Posture) is the spot-check versionauthentication/configuration— remediation patterns for Layers 4 and 2
