performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage
Triages web application vulnerability findings from DAST/SAST scanners such as Burp Suite and ZAP, using the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology to confirm true positives, dismiss false positives, and prioritize remediation. Use when reviewing scanner output to reduce alert fatigue and rank vulnerabilities for development teams to fix.
- License 许可
- Apache-2.0
- 最近更新
- 2026-08-31
- Stars
- ★ 3.6w
- Forks
- 4.4k
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage
- tags
- [ "web-application", "vulnerability-triage", "owasp", "dast", "sast", "burp-suite", "zap", "false-positive", "risk-rating" ]
- author
- mahipal
- domain
- cybersecurity
- license
- Apache-2.0
- version
- 1.0
- nist_csf
- [ "ID.RA-01", "ID.RA-02", "ID.IM-02", "ID.RA-06" ]
- subdomain
- vulnerability-management
- description
- Triages web application vulnerability findings from DAST/SAST scanners such as Burp Suite and ZAP, using the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology to confirm true positives, dismiss false positives, and prioritize remediation. Use when reviewing scanner output to reduce alert fatigue and rank vulnerabilities for development teams to fix.
- mitre_attack
- [ "T1190", "T1203", "T1068" ]
02 资源文件 6
- 许可证LICENSE11.0 KB
- 许可证LICENSE.txt143 B
- 参考文档references/api-reference.md1.5 KB
- 参考文档references/standards.md1.3 KB
- 参考文档references/workflows.md1.3 KB
- 脚本scripts/agent.py3.9 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
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
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
04 同仓库更多 Skills
verifying-build-provenance-with-slsa-sigstore
Verifies artifact signatures and SLSA provenance using Sigstore's cosign (verify, verify-attestation, verify-blob-attestation) and slsa-verifier (verify-artifact), enforcing keyless OIDC builder identity and source repo against SLSA Build levels. Use in CI/CD before deploying artifacts, when consuming third-party attestations, establishing a SLSA Build L3 pipeline, or confirming provenance during incident response or admission control.
validating-tpm-measured-boot-attestation
Verifies TPM 2.0 measured-boot integrity and remote attestation with tpm2-tools -- reading PCRs (tpm2_pcrread), replaying the boot event log, generating and checking signed quotes (tpm2_quote/tpm2_checkquote), and sealing secrets to a PCR policy. Use to confirm a system booted trusted firmware/kernel for Zero Trust device posture, detect boot-chain tampering via PCR drift, or build a golden-value baseline for fleet attestation.
validating-backup-integrity-for-recovery
Validates backup integrity through cryptographic hash verification, automated restore testing, corruption detection, and recoverability checks to confirm backups are reliable for disaster recovery and ransomware response. Use before relying on backups for recovery, when building post-backup validation pipelines, auditing backup infrastructure for compliance, or checking immutable/air-gapped backups for silent corruption or tampering.
triaging-windows-with-kape
Runs KAPE (Kroll Artifact Parser and Extractor) to collect targeted forensic artifacts (registry hives, $MFT, event logs, prefetch, browser data) via Targets and parse them with Modules wrapping Eric Zimmerman's EZ Tools (PECmd, MFTECmd, RECmd). Use during early incident containment/triage when full disk imaging is impractical but a defensible, parseable Windows artifact set is needed quickly, including at-scale remote collection.
triaging-vulnerabilities-with-ssvc-framework
Triages and prioritizes vulnerabilities with CISA's Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization (SSVC) decision tree, weighing exploitation status (via the CISA KEV catalog and FIRST EPSS API), technical impact, automatability, and mission prevalence to output Track/Track*/Attend/Act decisions. Use when prioritizing vulnerability scan results (OpenVAS, Nessus, Qualys) for remediation planning beyond raw CVSS scores.
triaging-security-incident
Performs initial triage of security incidents using the NIST SP 800-61r3 and SANS PICERL frameworks, classifying incident type, assigning priority by business impact, and routing to the appropriate response team. Use when a SIEM/EDR alert needs human classification, concurrent alerts must be prioritized, or a user report or threat-intel IOC match requires initial incident categorization.