mirror of
https://github.com/mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills.git
synced 2026-07-20 14:30:59 +03:00
Initial commit - 611 cybersecurity skills across all subdomains
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
# Standards - Web Application Vulnerability Triage
|
||||
|
||||
## Primary Standards
|
||||
|
||||
### OWASP Risk Rating Methodology
|
||||
- **URL**: https://owasp.org/www-community/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology
|
||||
- **Purpose**: Structured approach to evaluating likelihood and impact of web vulnerabilities
|
||||
|
||||
### OWASP Top 10 (2021)
|
||||
- **URL**: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/
|
||||
- **Categories**: A01 through A10 covering the most critical web application security risks
|
||||
|
||||
### OWASP Web Security Testing Guide v4.2
|
||||
- **URL**: https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/
|
||||
- **Relevance**: Manual validation techniques for scanner findings
|
||||
|
||||
### CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
|
||||
- **URL**: https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/
|
||||
- **Relevance**: Maps findings to common weakness enumeration for categorization
|
||||
|
||||
### CVSS v3.1 / v4.0
|
||||
- **URL**: https://www.first.org/cvss/
|
||||
- **Relevance**: Industry standard vulnerability scoring complementing OWASP risk rating
|
||||
|
||||
## Scanner References
|
||||
|
||||
| Tool | Type | Documentation |
|
||||
|------|------|---------------|
|
||||
| OWASP ZAP | DAST | https://www.zaproxy.org/docs/ |
|
||||
| Burp Suite | DAST | https://portswigger.net/burp/documentation |
|
||||
| Semgrep | SAST | https://semgrep.dev/docs/ |
|
||||
| SonarQube | SAST | https://docs.sonarqube.org/ |
|
||||
| Snyk Code | SAST | https://docs.snyk.io/scan-with-snyk/snyk-code |
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
# Workflows - Web Application Vulnerability Triage
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow 1: DAST Finding Triage
|
||||
1. Import DAST scan results (ZAP XML/JSON, Burp XML)
|
||||
2. Auto-classify findings by OWASP Top 10 category via CWE mapping
|
||||
3. Filter out known false positive patterns (missing headers on non-sensitive pages, etc.)
|
||||
4. Flag confirmed exploitation findings as true positives
|
||||
5. Queue remaining findings for manual validation
|
||||
6. Security analyst validates with manual testing in Burp/ZAP
|
||||
7. Assign OWASP risk rating to validated findings
|
||||
8. Push validated findings to DefectDojo/Jira
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow 2: SAST Finding Triage
|
||||
1. Import SAST scan results (Semgrep JSON, SonarQube)
|
||||
2. Filter out findings in test files, example code, and dead code
|
||||
3. Cross-reference against data flow analysis for injection findings
|
||||
4. Review code context to validate exploitability
|
||||
5. Assign severity based on data sensitivity and exposure
|
||||
6. Create development tickets for validated findings
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow 3: Combined Triage and Deduplication
|
||||
1. Import both DAST and SAST findings for same application
|
||||
2. Correlate SAST code findings with DAST runtime findings
|
||||
3. Findings confirmed by both DAST and SAST get elevated priority
|
||||
4. Deduplicate findings pointing to same root cause
|
||||
5. Generate unified triage report with remediation priority
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user