performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage
SKILL.md
Performing Web Application Vulnerability Triage
Overview
Web application vulnerability triage is the process of reviewing findings from DAST (Dynamic Application Security Testing) and SAST (Static Application Security Testing) tools to validate true positives, dismiss false positives, assign risk ratings using the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology, and prioritize remediation. Effective triage reduces alert fatigue and focuses development teams on the vulnerabilities that matter most.
Prerequisites
- DAST scan results (OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix)
- SAST scan results (Semgrep, SonarQube, Checkmarx, Snyk Code)
- Python 3.9+ with
requests,beautifulsoup4 - Burp Suite Professional or OWASP ZAP for manual validation
- DefectDojo or similar for finding management
OWASP Risk Rating Methodology
Risk Calculation
Risk = Likelihood x Impact
Likelihood Factors (0-9 scale)
| Factor Group | Factor | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Threat Agent | Skill Level | How technically skilled is the attacker? |
| Threat Agent | Motive | How motivated is the attacker? |
| Threat Agent | Opportunity | What resources/access are needed? |
| Threat Agent | Size | How large is the potential threat agent group? |
| Vulnerability | Ease of Discovery | How easy is it to find the vulnerability? |
| Vulnerability | Ease of Exploit | How easy is it to exploit? |
| Vulnerability | Awareness | How well known is the vulnerability? |
| Vulnerability | Intrusion Detection | How likely is exploitation to be detected? |
Impact Factors (0-9 scale)
| Factor Group | Factor | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Confidentiality | How much data could be disclosed? |
| Technical | Integrity | How much data could be corrupted? |
| Technical | Availability | How much service could be lost? |
| Technical | Accountability | Can actions be traced to attacker? |
| Business | Financial Damage | Revenue loss, regulatory fines |
| Business | Reputation Damage | Brand trust erosion |
| Business | Non-compliance | Regulatory violation exposure |
| Business | Privacy Violation | PII/PHI exposure volume |
Risk Matrix
| Low Impact (0-3) | Medium Impact (3-6) | High Impact (6-9) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Likelihood (6-9) | Medium | High | Critical |
| Medium Likelihood (3-6) | Low | Medium | High |
| Low Likelihood (0-3) | Note | Low | Medium |
Triage Process
Step 1: Categorize by OWASP Top 10
OWASP_TOP_10_2021 = {
"A01": "Broken Access Control",
"A02": "Cryptographic Failures",
"A03": "Injection",
"A04": "Insecure Design",
"A05": "Security Misconfiguration",
"A06": "Vulnerable and Outdated Components",
"A07": "Identification and Authentication Failures",
"A08": "Software and Data Integrity Failures",
"A09": "Security Logging and Monitoring Failures",
"A10": "Server-Side Request Forgery",
}
CWE_TO_OWASP = {
"CWE-79": "A03", # XSS -> Injection
"CWE-89": "A03", # SQL Injection
"CWE-78": "A03", # OS Command Injection
"CWE-352": "A01", # CSRF -> Access Control
"CWE-22": "A01", # Path Traversal
"CWE-200": "A02", # Information Exposure
"CWE-327": "A02", # Weak Cryptography
"CWE-287": "A07", # Authentication Issues
"CWE-918": "A10", # SSRF
"CWE-502": "A08", # Deserialization
"CWE-611": "A05", # XXE -> Misconfiguration
}
Step 2: Validate True vs False Positives
def triage_finding(finding):
"""Classify finding as true_positive, false_positive, or needs_review."""
fp_indicators = [
"Content-Security-Policy header not set", # Often informational
"X-Content-Type-Options header missing", # Low severity header
"Cookie without SameSite attribute", # Context dependent
]
for indicator in fp_indicators:
if indicator.lower() in finding.get("title", "").lower():
if finding.get("severity", "").lower() in ("info", "low"):
return "false_positive", "Common informational finding"
# Check for confirmed exploitation evidence
if finding.get("evidence") and finding.get("confidence", "").lower() == "certain":
return "true_positive", "Scanner confirmed exploitation"
# SAST findings need manual code review
if finding.get("source") == "sast":
if finding.get("cwe") in ["CWE-89", "CWE-78", "CWE-79"]:
return "needs_review", "Injection finding requires manual code review"
return "needs_review", "Requires manual validation"
Step 3: Risk Score Calculation
def calculate_risk_score(finding, app_context):
"""Calculate OWASP risk rating for a web application finding."""
# Likelihood factors
likelihood = {
"skill_level": 6 if finding["cwe"] in ["CWE-89", "CWE-79"] else 4,
"motive": 7, # Financial gain
"opportunity": 7 if finding.get("authenticated") == False else 4,
"size": 9 if finding.get("internet_facing") else 4,
"ease_of_discovery": 8 if finding.get("scanner_detected") else 5,
"ease_of_exploit": 7 if finding.get("exploit_available") else 4,
"awareness": 6,
"intrusion_detection": 3 if app_context.get("waf_enabled") else 8,
}
# Impact factors
impact = {
"confidentiality": 9 if "data_exposure" in finding.get("tags", []) else 5,
"integrity": 9 if finding["cwe"] in ["CWE-89", "CWE-78"] else 4,
"availability": 7 if "dos" in finding.get("tags", []) else 2,
"accountability": 3 if app_context.get("logging_enabled") else 7,
"financial": 7 if app_context.get("processes_payments") else 3,
"reputation": 6 if app_context.get("customer_facing") else 2,
"compliance": 8 if app_context.get("pci_scope") else 3,
"privacy": 9 if app_context.get("handles_pii") else 2,
}
likelihood_score = sum(likelihood.values()) / len(likelihood)
impact_score = sum(impact.values()) / len(impact)
risk_score = likelihood_score * impact_score
if risk_score >= 42:
risk_level = "Critical"
elif risk_score >= 24:
risk_level = "High"
elif risk_score >= 12:
risk_level = "Medium"
elif risk_score >= 3:
risk_level = "Low"
else:
risk_level = "Note"
return {
"likelihood_score": round(likelihood_score, 1),
"impact_score": round(impact_score, 1),
"risk_score": round(risk_score, 1),
"risk_level": risk_level,
}
Step 4: Generate Triage Report
# Process DAST/SAST results through triage pipeline
python3 scripts/process.py \
--input zap_results.json \
--format zap \
--app-context app_config.json \
--output triage_report.json
Manual Validation Techniques
SQL Injection Validation
# Test parameter with single quote
GET /search?q=test' HTTP/1.1
# Test with boolean-based payload
GET /search?q=test' AND 1=1-- HTTP/1.1
GET /search?q=test' AND 1=2-- HTTP/1.1
# Time-based verification
GET /search?q=test'; WAITFOR DELAY '0:0:5'-- HTTP/1.1
XSS Validation
# Reflected XSS test
GET /search?q=<script>alert(document.domain)</script> HTTP/1.1
# Check if output is encoded
GET /search?q="><img src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP/1.1
# DOM-based XSS
GET /page#<img src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP/1.1
References
Weekly Installs
8
Repository
mukul975/anthro…y-skillsGitHub Stars
2.4K
First Seen
3 days ago
Security Audits
Installed on
opencode8
github-copilot8
codex8
kimi-cli8
amp8
cline8