performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage

Triage web application vulnerability findings from DAST/SAST scanners using OWASP risk rating methodology to separate true positives from false positives and prioritize remediation.

16 stars

Best use case

performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Triage web application vulnerability findings from DAST/SAST scanners using OWASP risk rating methodology to separate true positives from false positives and prioritize remediation.

Teams using performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/plurigrid/asi/main/plugins/asi/skills/performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage Compares

Feature / Agentperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triageStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Triage web application vulnerability findings from DAST/SAST scanners using OWASP risk rating methodology to separate true positives from false positives and prioritize remediation.

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

SKILL.md Source

# 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.


## When to Use

- When conducting security assessments that involve performing web application vulnerability triage
- When following incident response procedures for related security events
- When performing scheduled security testing or auditing activities
- When validating security controls through hands-on testing

## 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

```python
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

```python
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

```python
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

```bash
# 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

- [OWASP Risk Rating Methodology](https://owasp.org/www-community/OWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology)
- [OWASP Top 10 2021](https://owasp.org/www-project-top-ten/)
- [OWASP Testing Guide v4.2](https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/)
- [CWE/SANS Top 25](https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/)

Related Skills

testing-api-for-mass-assignment-vulnerability

16
from plurigrid/asi

Tests APIs for mass assignment (auto-binding) vulnerabilities where clients can modify object properties they should not have access to by including additional parameters in API requests. The tester identifies writable endpoints, adds undocumented fields to request bodies (role, isAdmin, price, balance), and checks if the server binds these to the data model without filtering. Part of OWASP API3:2023 Broken Object Property Level Authorization. Activates for requests involving mass assignment testing, parameter binding abuse, auto-binding vulnerability, or API over-posting.

substrate-vulnerability-scanner

16
from plurigrid/asi

Scans Substrate/Polkadot pallets for 7 critical vulnerabilities including arithmetic overflow, panic DoS, incorrect weights, and bad origin checks. Use when auditing Substrate runtimes or FRAME pallets. (project, gitignored)

performing-yara-rule-development-for-detection

16
from plurigrid/asi

Develop precise YARA rules for malware detection by identifying unique byte patterns, strings, and behavioral indicators in executable files while minimizing false positives.

performing-wireless-security-assessment-with-kismet

16
from plurigrid/asi

Conduct wireless network security assessments using Kismet to detect rogue access points, hidden SSIDs, weak encryption, and unauthorized clients through passive RF monitoring.

performing-wireless-network-penetration-test

16
from plurigrid/asi

Execute a wireless network penetration test to assess WiFi security by capturing handshakes, cracking WPA2/WPA3 keys, detecting rogue access points, and testing wireless segmentation using Aircrack-ng and related tools.

performing-windows-artifact-analysis-with-eric-zimmerman-tools

16
from plurigrid/asi

Perform comprehensive Windows forensic artifact analysis using Eric Zimmerman's open-source EZ Tools suite including KAPE, MFTECmd, PECmd, LECmd, JLECmd, and Timeline Explorer for parsing registry hives, prefetch files, event logs, and file system metadata.

performing-wifi-password-cracking-with-aircrack

16
from plurigrid/asi

Captures WPA/WPA2 handshakes and performs offline password cracking using aircrack-ng, hashcat, and dictionary attacks during authorized wireless security assessments to evaluate passphrase strength and wireless network security posture.

performing-web-cache-poisoning-attack

16
from plurigrid/asi

Exploiting web cache mechanisms to serve malicious content to other users by poisoning cached responses through unkeyed headers and parameters during authorized security tests.

performing-web-cache-deception-attack

16
from plurigrid/asi

Execute web cache deception attacks by exploiting path normalization discrepancies between CDN caching layers and origin servers to cache and retrieve sensitive authenticated content.

performing-web-application-scanning-with-nikto

16
from plurigrid/asi

Nikto is an open-source web server and web application scanner that tests against over 7,000 potentially dangerous files/programs, checks for outdated versions of over 1,250 servers, and identifies ve

performing-web-application-penetration-test

16
from plurigrid/asi

Performs systematic security testing of web applications following the OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (WSTG) methodology to identify vulnerabilities in authentication, authorization, input validation, session management, and business logic. The tester uses Burp Suite as the primary interception proxy alongside manual testing techniques to find flaws that automated scanners miss. Activates for requests involving web app pentest, OWASP testing, application security assessment, or web vulnerability testing.

performing-web-application-firewall-bypass

16
from plurigrid/asi

Bypass Web Application Firewall protections using encoding techniques, HTTP method manipulation, parameter pollution, and payload obfuscation to deliver SQL injection, XSS, and other attack payloads past WAF detection rules.