[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6AG4ZSDXD56A3S12NJ5MEZ1":3,"skill-same:01M6AG4ZSDXD56A3S12NJ5MEZ1":111},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":39,"linkOnly":40,"markdownContent":41,"markdownBody":42,"frontMatter":43,"refName":58,"commitSha":59,"skillDirectory":60,"forksCount":61,"repositoryHtmlUrl":62,"repositoryHomepageUrl":63,"ownerHtmlUrl":64,"ownerBlogUrl":65,"ownerDescription":66,"updatedAt":67,"install":68,"resources":81},"01M6AG4ZSDXD56A3S12NJ5MEZ1","performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage",null,"Triages web application vulnerability findings from DAST\u002FSAST 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.","mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills","mukul975","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F42860185?v=4","01M6ADEQR8T5M4EEG6C67BQCWF","Mahipal","01M6ADJPMYWG1E5GM1FWBE3128",36146,"Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38],"performing web application vulnerability triage","triage","web","vulnerability","vulnerability triage","vulnerability-management","vulnerability-triage","web-application","false-positive","risk","burp-suite","owasp","remediation","sast","methodology","dast","teams","development","vulnerabilities","cybersecurity","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage\ndescription: Triages web application vulnerability findings from DAST\u002FSAST scanners\n  such as Burp Suite and ZAP, using the OWASP Risk Rating Methodology to confirm\n  true positives, dismiss false positives, and prioritize remediation. Use when\n  reviewing scanner output to reduce alert fatigue and rank vulnerabilities for\n  development teams to fix.\ndomain: cybersecurity\nsubdomain: vulnerability-management\ntags:\n- web-application\n- vulnerability-triage\n- owasp\n- dast\n- sast\n- burp-suite\n- zap\n- false-positive\n- risk-rating\nversion: '1.0'\nauthor: mahipal\nlicense: Apache-2.0\nnist_csf:\n- ID.RA-01\n- ID.RA-02\n- ID.IM-02\n- ID.RA-06\nmitre_attack:\n- T1190\n- T1203\n- T1068\n---\n\n# Performing Web Application Vulnerability Triage\n\n## Overview\n\nWeb 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.\n\n\n## When to Use\n\n- When conducting security assessments that involve performing web application vulnerability triage\n- When following incident response procedures for related security events\n- When performing scheduled security testing or auditing activities\n- When validating security controls through hands-on testing\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n- DAST scan results (OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix)\n- SAST scan results (Semgrep, SonarQube, Checkmarx, Snyk Code)\n- Python 3.9+ with `requests`, `beautifulsoup4`\n- Burp Suite Professional or OWASP ZAP for manual validation\n- DefectDojo or similar for finding management\n\n## OWASP Risk Rating Methodology\n\n### Risk Calculation\n```\nRisk = Likelihood x Impact\n```\n\n### Likelihood Factors (0-9 scale)\n| Factor Group | Factor | Description |\n|-------------|--------|------------|\n| Threat Agent | Skill Level | How technically skilled is the attacker? |\n| Threat Agent | Motive | How motivated is the attacker? |\n| Threat Agent | Opportunity | What resources\u002Faccess are needed? |\n| Threat Agent | Size | How large is the potential threat agent group? |\n| Vulnerability | Ease of Discovery | How easy is it to find the vulnerability? |\n| Vulnerability | Ease of Exploit | How easy is it to exploit? |\n| Vulnerability | Awareness | How well known is the vulnerability? |\n| Vulnerability | Intrusion Detection | How likely is exploitation to be detected? |\n\n### Impact Factors (0-9 scale)\n| Factor Group | Factor | Description |\n|-------------|--------|------------|\n| Technical | Confidentiality | How much data could be disclosed? |\n| Technical | Integrity | How much data could be corrupted? |\n| Technical | Availability | How much service could be lost? |\n| Technical | Accountability | Can actions be traced to attacker? |\n| Business | Financial Damage | Revenue loss, regulatory fines |\n| Business | Reputation Damage | Brand trust erosion |\n| Business | Non-compliance | Regulatory violation exposure |\n| Business | Privacy Violation | PII\u002FPHI exposure volume |\n\n### Risk Matrix\n| | Low Impact (0-3) | Medium Impact (3-6) | High Impact (6-9) |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| **High Likelihood (6-9)** | Medium | High | Critical |\n| **Medium Likelihood (3-6)** | Low | Medium | High |\n| **Low Likelihood (0-3)** | Note | Low | Medium |\n\n## Triage Process\n\n### Step 1: Categorize by OWASP Top 10\n\n```python\nOWASP_TOP_10_2021 = {\n    \"A01\": \"Broken Access Control\",\n    \"A02\": \"Cryptographic Failures\",\n    \"A03\": \"Injection\",\n    \"A04\": \"Insecure Design\",\n    \"A05\": \"Security Misconfiguration\",\n    \"A06\": \"Vulnerable and Outdated Components\",\n    \"A07\": \"Identification and Authentication Failures\",\n    \"A08\": \"Software and Data Integrity Failures\",\n    \"A09\": \"Security Logging and Monitoring Failures\",\n    \"A10\": \"Server-Side Request Forgery\",\n}\n\nCWE_TO_OWASP = {\n    \"CWE-79\": \"A03\",   # XSS -> Injection\n    \"CWE-89\": \"A03\",   # SQL Injection\n    \"CWE-78\": \"A03\",   # OS Command Injection\n    \"CWE-352\": \"A01\",  # CSRF -> Access Control\n    \"CWE-22\": \"A01\",   # Path Traversal\n    \"CWE-200\": \"A02\",  # Information Exposure\n    \"CWE-327\": \"A02\",  # Weak Cryptography\n    \"CWE-287\": \"A07\",  # Authentication Issues\n    \"CWE-918\": \"A10\",  # SSRF\n    \"CWE-502\": \"A08\",  # Deserialization\n    \"CWE-611\": \"A05\",  # XXE -> Misconfiguration\n}\n```\n\n### Step 2: Validate True vs False Positives\n\n```python\ndef triage_finding(finding):\n    \"\"\"Classify finding as true_positive, false_positive, or needs_review.\"\"\"\n    fp_indicators = [\n        \"Content-Security-Policy header not set\",  # Often informational\n        \"X-Content-Type-Options header missing\",    # Low severity header\n        \"Cookie without SameSite attribute\",        # Context dependent\n    ]\n\n    for indicator in fp_indicators:\n        if indicator.lower() in finding.get(\"title\", \"\").lower():\n            if finding.get(\"severity\", \"\").lower() in (\"info\", \"low\"):\n                return \"false_positive\", \"Common informational finding\"\n\n    # Check for confirmed exploitation evidence\n    if finding.get(\"evidence\") and finding.get(\"confidence\", \"\").lower() == \"certain\":\n        return \"true_positive\", \"Scanner confirmed exploitation\"\n\n    # SAST findings need manual code review\n    if finding.get(\"source\") == \"sast\":\n        if finding.get(\"cwe\") in [\"CWE-89\", \"CWE-78\", \"CWE-79\"]:\n            return \"needs_review\", \"Injection finding requires manual code review\"\n\n    return \"needs_review\", \"Requires manual validation\"\n```\n\n### Step 3: Risk Score Calculation\n\n```python\ndef calculate_risk_score(finding, app_context):\n    \"\"\"Calculate OWASP risk rating for a web application finding.\"\"\"\n    # Likelihood factors\n    likelihood = {\n        \"skill_level\": 6 if finding[\"cwe\"] in [\"CWE-89\", \"CWE-79\"] else 4,\n        \"motive\": 7,  # Financial gain\n        \"opportunity\": 7 if finding.get(\"authenticated\") == False else 4,\n        \"size\": 9 if finding.get(\"internet_facing\") else 4,\n        \"ease_of_discovery\": 8 if finding.get(\"scanner_detected\") else 5,\n        \"ease_of_exploit\": 7 if finding.get(\"exploit_available\") else 4,\n        \"awareness\": 6,\n        \"intrusion_detection\": 3 if app_context.get(\"waf_enabled\") else 8,\n    }\n\n    # Impact factors\n    impact = {\n        \"confidentiality\": 9 if \"data_exposure\" in finding.get(\"tags\", []) else 5,\n        \"integrity\": 9 if finding[\"cwe\"] in [\"CWE-89\", \"CWE-78\"] else 4,\n        \"availability\": 7 if \"dos\" in finding.get(\"tags\", []) else 2,\n        \"accountability\": 3 if app_context.get(\"logging_enabled\") else 7,\n        \"financial\": 7 if app_context.get(\"processes_payments\") else 3,\n        \"reputation\": 6 if app_context.get(\"customer_facing\") else 2,\n        \"compliance\": 8 if app_context.get(\"pci_scope\") else 3,\n        \"privacy\": 9 if app_context.get(\"handles_pii\") else 2,\n    }\n\n    likelihood_score = sum(likelihood.values()) \u002F len(likelihood)\n    impact_score = sum(impact.values()) \u002F len(impact)\n    risk_score = likelihood_score * impact_score\n\n    if risk_score >= 42:\n        risk_level = \"Critical\"\n    elif risk_score >= 24:\n        risk_level = \"High\"\n    elif risk_score >= 12:\n        risk_level = \"Medium\"\n    elif risk_score >= 3:\n        risk_level = \"Low\"\n    else:\n        risk_level = \"Note\"\n\n    return {\n        \"likelihood_score\": round(likelihood_score, 1),\n        \"impact_score\": round(impact_score, 1),\n        \"risk_score\": round(risk_score, 1),\n        \"risk_level\": risk_level,\n    }\n```\n\n### Step 4: Generate Triage Report\n\n```bash\n# Process DAST\u002FSAST results through triage pipeline\npython3 scripts\u002Fprocess.py \\\n  --input zap_results.json \\\n  --format zap \\\n  --app-context app_config.json \\\n  --output triage_report.json\n```\n\n## Manual Validation Techniques\n\n### SQL Injection Validation\n```\n# Test parameter with single quote\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test' HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# Test with boolean-based payload\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test' AND 1=1-- HTTP\u002F1.1\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test' AND 1=2-- HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# Time-based verification\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test'; WAITFOR DELAY '0:0:5'-- HTTP\u002F1.1\n```\n\n### XSS Validation\n```\n# Reflected XSS test\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=\u003Cscript>alert(document.domain)\u003C\u002Fscript> HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# Check if output is encoded\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=\">\u003Cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# DOM-based XSS\nGET \u002Fpage#\u003Cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP\u002F1.1\n```\n\n## References\n\n- [OWASP Risk Rating Methodology](https:\u002F\u002Fowasp.org\u002Fwww-community\u002FOWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology)\n- [OWASP Top 10 2021](https:\u002F\u002Fowasp.org\u002Fwww-project-top-ten\u002F)\n- [OWASP Testing Guide v4.2](https:\u002F\u002Fowasp.org\u002Fwww-project-web-security-testing-guide\u002F)\n- [CWE\u002FSANS Top 25](https:\u002F\u002Fcwe.mitre.org\u002Ftop25\u002F)\n","# Performing Web Application Vulnerability Triage\n\n## Overview\n\nWeb 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.\n\n\n## When to Use\n\n- When conducting security assessments that involve performing web application vulnerability triage\n- When following incident response procedures for related security events\n- When performing scheduled security testing or auditing activities\n- When validating security controls through hands-on testing\n\n## Prerequisites\n\n- DAST scan results (OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix)\n- SAST scan results (Semgrep, SonarQube, Checkmarx, Snyk Code)\n- Python 3.9+ with `requests`, `beautifulsoup4`\n- Burp Suite Professional or OWASP ZAP for manual validation\n- DefectDojo or similar for finding management\n\n## OWASP Risk Rating Methodology\n\n### Risk Calculation\n```\nRisk = Likelihood x Impact\n```\n\n### Likelihood Factors (0-9 scale)\n| Factor Group | Factor | Description |\n|-------------|--------|------------|\n| Threat Agent | Skill Level | How technically skilled is the attacker? |\n| Threat Agent | Motive | How motivated is the attacker? |\n| Threat Agent | Opportunity | What resources\u002Faccess are needed? |\n| Threat Agent | Size | How large is the potential threat agent group? |\n| Vulnerability | Ease of Discovery | How easy is it to find the vulnerability? |\n| Vulnerability | Ease of Exploit | How easy is it to exploit? |\n| Vulnerability | Awareness | How well known is the vulnerability? |\n| Vulnerability | Intrusion Detection | How likely is exploitation to be detected? |\n\n### Impact Factors (0-9 scale)\n| Factor Group | Factor | Description |\n|-------------|--------|------------|\n| Technical | Confidentiality | How much data could be disclosed? |\n| Technical | Integrity | How much data could be corrupted? |\n| Technical | Availability | How much service could be lost? |\n| Technical | Accountability | Can actions be traced to attacker? |\n| Business | Financial Damage | Revenue loss, regulatory fines |\n| Business | Reputation Damage | Brand trust erosion |\n| Business | Non-compliance | Regulatory violation exposure |\n| Business | Privacy Violation | PII\u002FPHI exposure volume |\n\n### Risk Matrix\n| | Low Impact (0-3) | Medium Impact (3-6) | High Impact (6-9) |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| **High Likelihood (6-9)** | Medium | High | Critical |\n| **Medium Likelihood (3-6)** | Low | Medium | High |\n| **Low Likelihood (0-3)** | Note | Low | Medium |\n\n## Triage Process\n\n### Step 1: Categorize by OWASP Top 10\n\n```python\nOWASP_TOP_10_2021 = {\n    \"A01\": \"Broken Access Control\",\n    \"A02\": \"Cryptographic Failures\",\n    \"A03\": \"Injection\",\n    \"A04\": \"Insecure Design\",\n    \"A05\": \"Security Misconfiguration\",\n    \"A06\": \"Vulnerable and Outdated Components\",\n    \"A07\": \"Identification and Authentication Failures\",\n    \"A08\": \"Software and Data Integrity Failures\",\n    \"A09\": \"Security Logging and Monitoring Failures\",\n    \"A10\": \"Server-Side Request Forgery\",\n}\n\nCWE_TO_OWASP = {\n    \"CWE-79\": \"A03\",   # XSS -> Injection\n    \"CWE-89\": \"A03\",   # SQL Injection\n    \"CWE-78\": \"A03\",   # OS Command Injection\n    \"CWE-352\": \"A01\",  # CSRF -> Access Control\n    \"CWE-22\": \"A01\",   # Path Traversal\n    \"CWE-200\": \"A02\",  # Information Exposure\n    \"CWE-327\": \"A02\",  # Weak Cryptography\n    \"CWE-287\": \"A07\",  # Authentication Issues\n    \"CWE-918\": \"A10\",  # SSRF\n    \"CWE-502\": \"A08\",  # Deserialization\n    \"CWE-611\": \"A05\",  # XXE -> Misconfiguration\n}\n```\n\n### Step 2: Validate True vs False Positives\n\n```python\ndef triage_finding(finding):\n    \"\"\"Classify finding as true_positive, false_positive, or needs_review.\"\"\"\n    fp_indicators = [\n        \"Content-Security-Policy header not set\",  # Often informational\n        \"X-Content-Type-Options header missing\",    # Low severity header\n        \"Cookie without SameSite attribute\",        # Context dependent\n    ]\n\n    for indicator in fp_indicators:\n        if indicator.lower() in finding.get(\"title\", \"\").lower():\n            if finding.get(\"severity\", \"\").lower() in (\"info\", \"low\"):\n                return \"false_positive\", \"Common informational finding\"\n\n    # Check for confirmed exploitation evidence\n    if finding.get(\"evidence\") and finding.get(\"confidence\", \"\").lower() == \"certain\":\n        return \"true_positive\", \"Scanner confirmed exploitation\"\n\n    # SAST findings need manual code review\n    if finding.get(\"source\") == \"sast\":\n        if finding.get(\"cwe\") in [\"CWE-89\", \"CWE-78\", \"CWE-79\"]:\n            return \"needs_review\", \"Injection finding requires manual code review\"\n\n    return \"needs_review\", \"Requires manual validation\"\n```\n\n### Step 3: Risk Score Calculation\n\n```python\ndef calculate_risk_score(finding, app_context):\n    \"\"\"Calculate OWASP risk rating for a web application finding.\"\"\"\n    # Likelihood factors\n    likelihood = {\n        \"skill_level\": 6 if finding[\"cwe\"] in [\"CWE-89\", \"CWE-79\"] else 4,\n        \"motive\": 7,  # Financial gain\n        \"opportunity\": 7 if finding.get(\"authenticated\") == False else 4,\n        \"size\": 9 if finding.get(\"internet_facing\") else 4,\n        \"ease_of_discovery\": 8 if finding.get(\"scanner_detected\") else 5,\n        \"ease_of_exploit\": 7 if finding.get(\"exploit_available\") else 4,\n        \"awareness\": 6,\n        \"intrusion_detection\": 3 if app_context.get(\"waf_enabled\") else 8,\n    }\n\n    # Impact factors\n    impact = {\n        \"confidentiality\": 9 if \"data_exposure\" in finding.get(\"tags\", []) else 5,\n        \"integrity\": 9 if finding[\"cwe\"] in [\"CWE-89\", \"CWE-78\"] else 4,\n        \"availability\": 7 if \"dos\" in finding.get(\"tags\", []) else 2,\n        \"accountability\": 3 if app_context.get(\"logging_enabled\") else 7,\n        \"financial\": 7 if app_context.get(\"processes_payments\") else 3,\n        \"reputation\": 6 if app_context.get(\"customer_facing\") else 2,\n        \"compliance\": 8 if app_context.get(\"pci_scope\") else 3,\n        \"privacy\": 9 if app_context.get(\"handles_pii\") else 2,\n    }\n\n    likelihood_score = sum(likelihood.values()) \u002F len(likelihood)\n    impact_score = sum(impact.values()) \u002F len(impact)\n    risk_score = likelihood_score * impact_score\n\n    if risk_score >= 42:\n        risk_level = \"Critical\"\n    elif risk_score >= 24:\n        risk_level = \"High\"\n    elif risk_score >= 12:\n        risk_level = \"Medium\"\n    elif risk_score >= 3:\n        risk_level = \"Low\"\n    else:\n        risk_level = \"Note\"\n\n    return {\n        \"likelihood_score\": round(likelihood_score, 1),\n        \"impact_score\": round(impact_score, 1),\n        \"risk_score\": round(risk_score, 1),\n        \"risk_level\": risk_level,\n    }\n```\n\n### Step 4: Generate Triage Report\n\n```bash\n# Process DAST\u002FSAST results through triage pipeline\npython3 scripts\u002Fprocess.py \\\n  --input zap_results.json \\\n  --format zap \\\n  --app-context app_config.json \\\n  --output triage_report.json\n```\n\n## Manual Validation Techniques\n\n### SQL Injection Validation\n```\n# Test parameter with single quote\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test' HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# Test with boolean-based payload\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test' AND 1=1-- HTTP\u002F1.1\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test' AND 1=2-- HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# Time-based verification\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=test'; WAITFOR DELAY '0:0:5'-- HTTP\u002F1.1\n```\n\n### XSS Validation\n```\n# Reflected XSS test\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=\u003Cscript>alert(document.domain)\u003C\u002Fscript> HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# Check if output is encoded\nGET \u002Fsearch?q=\">\u003Cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP\u002F1.1\n\n# DOM-based XSS\nGET \u002Fpage#\u003Cimg src=x onerror=alert(1)> HTTP\u002F1.1\n```\n\n## References\n\n- [OWASP Risk Rating Methodology](https:\u002F\u002Fowasp.org\u002Fwww-community\u002FOWASP_Risk_Rating_Methodology)\n- [OWASP Top 10 2021](https:\u002F\u002Fowasp.org\u002Fwww-project-top-ten\u002F)\n- [OWASP Testing Guide v4.2](https:\u002F\u002Fowasp.org\u002Fwww-project-web-security-testing-guide\u002F)\n- [CWE\u002FSANS Top 25](https:\u002F\u002Fcwe.mitre.org\u002Ftop25\u002F)\n",{"name":5,"tags":44,"author":47,"domain":38,"license":15,"version":48,"nist_csf":49,"subdomain":24,"description":7,"mitre_attack":54},[26,25,30,34,32,29,45,27,46],"zap","risk-rating","mahipal","1.0",[50,51,52,53],"ID.RA-01","ID.RA-02","ID.IM-02","ID.RA-06",[55,56,57],"T1190","T1203","T1068","main","54a798831d2266a3ca61ce68a7acb80b81160d57","skills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage",4425,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills","https:\u002F\u002Fmahipal.engineer\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975","Mahipal.engineer","🔐 Cybersecurity | 💻 Dev | 📷 Street Photographer\r\n🎓 MSc | 📚 Research & AI Security","2026-08-31 12:32:44",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":69,"prompt":79,"zipAvailable":80},[70,73,76],{"tool":71,"command":72},"npx","npx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage",{"tool":74,"command":75},"bunx","bunx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage",{"tool":77,"command":78},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add mukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills --skill performing-web-application-vulnerability-triage","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage\u002FSKILL.md",true,[82,87,91,97,101,105],{"path":83,"resourceType":83,"resourceTypeDesc":84,"sizeBytes":85,"sourceHtmlUrl":86},"LICENSE","许可证",11255,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage\u002FLICENSE",{"path":88,"resourceType":83,"resourceTypeDesc":84,"sizeBytes":89,"sourceHtmlUrl":90},"LICENSE.txt",143,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fnoirelab\u002Flinux-setup\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fconfigs\u002Fcommon\u002Fopencode\u002Fskills\u002Fseo-audit\u002FLICENSE.txt",{"path":92,"resourceType":93,"resourceTypeDesc":94,"sizeBytes":95,"sourceHtmlUrl":96},"references\u002Fapi-reference.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",1572,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage\u002Freferences\u002Fapi-reference.md",{"path":98,"resourceType":93,"resourceTypeDesc":94,"sizeBytes":99,"sourceHtmlUrl":100},"references\u002Fstandards.md",1323,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage\u002Freferences\u002Fstandards.md",{"path":102,"resourceType":93,"resourceTypeDesc":94,"sizeBytes":103,"sourceHtmlUrl":104},"references\u002Fworkflows.md",1296,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage\u002Freferences\u002Fworkflows.md",{"path":106,"resourceType":107,"resourceTypeDesc":108,"sizeBytes":109,"sourceHtmlUrl":110},"scripts\u002Fagent.py","SCRIPT","脚本",4042,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fperforming-web-application-vulnerability-triage\u002Fscripts\u002Fagent.py",[112,143,167,195,221,243],{"skillNo":113,"name":114,"nameZh":6,"description":115,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":116,"categories":117,"keywords":123,"publishedAt":39},"01M6AGDM3HJXTKXX15ZZ0ZVCJ3","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\u002FCD before deploying artifacts, when consuming third-party attestations, establishing a SLSA Build L3 pipeline, or confirming provenance during incident response or admission control.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fverifying-build-provenance-with-slsa-sigstore\u002FSKILL.md",[118],{"categoryNo":119,"categoryName":120,"taxonomyType":121,"taxonomyTypeDesc":122},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[124,125,126,127,128,38,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142],"sigstore","provenance","slsa","verifying build provenance with slsa sigstore","security","incident response","identity","pr","code","artifacts","ci","supply-chain","pipeline","supply-chain-security","t1195","attestation","code-signing","cosign","keyless",{"skillNo":144,"name":145,"nameZh":6,"description":146,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":147,"categories":148,"keywords":150,"publishedAt":39},"01M6AGDGBPWYVZ2F11GFKJ4HZ9","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\u002Ftpm2_checkquote), and sealing secrets to a PCR policy. Use to confirm a system booted trusted firmware\u002Fkernel for Zero Trust device posture, detect boot-chain tampering via PCR drift, or build a golden-value baseline for fleet attestation.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvalidating-tpm-measured-boot-attestation\u002FSKILL.md",[149],{"categoryNo":119,"categoryName":120,"taxonomyType":121,"taxonomyTypeDesc":122},[151,139,152,153,128,154,38,131,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166],"boot","TPM","validating tpm measured boot attestation","policy","verification","ZeRO","firmware","Tools","measured-boot","PCR","integrity","secrets","remote-attestation","tpm2-tools","integrity-verification","trusted-computing",{"skillNo":168,"name":169,"nameZh":6,"description":170,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":171,"categories":172,"keywords":177,"publishedAt":39},"01M6AGDCW0Y4FXZ3362GT1941M","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\u002Fair-gapped backups for silent corruption or tampering.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fvalidating-backup-integrity-for-recovery\u002FSKILL.md",[173,176],{"categoryNo":174,"categoryName":175,"taxonomyType":121,"taxonomyTypeDesc":122},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":119,"categoryName":120,"taxonomyType":121,"taxonomyTypeDesc":122},[161,178,179,180,181,38,182,183,155,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194],"backup","recovery","validating backup integrity for recovery","testing","infrastructure","validation","compliance","hash-verification","incident-response","ransomware","cryptocurrency","detection","t1078","t1490","immutable","disaster-recovery","restore-testing",{"skillNo":196,"name":197,"nameZh":6,"description":198,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":199,"categories":200,"keywords":202,"publishedAt":39},"01M6AGD9GBG2KZ336AE763J3WH","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\u002Ftriage when full disk imaging is impractical but a defensible, parseable Windows artifact set is needed quickly, including at-scale remote collection.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-windows-with-kape\u002FSKILL.md",[201],{"categoryNo":119,"categoryName":120,"taxonomyType":121,"taxonomyTypeDesc":122},[203,204,205,38,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,158,218,219,220],"windows","kape","triaging windows with kape","registry","browser","logs","windows-forensics","dfir","mft","mftecmd","data","prefetch","eric-zimmerman","digital-forensics","SET","collection","pecmd","artifact-collection",{"skillNo":222,"name":223,"nameZh":6,"description":224,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":225,"categories":226,"keywords":228,"publishedAt":39},"01M6AGD5PW5J4EVZM958WD74ZQ","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\u002FTrack*\u002FAttend\u002FAct decisions. Use when prioritizing vulnerability scan results (OpenVAS, Nessus, Qualys) for remediation planning beyond raw CVSS scores.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-vulnerabilities-with-ssvc-framework\u002FSKILL.md",[227],{"categoryNo":119,"categoryName":120,"taxonomyType":121,"taxonomyTypeDesc":122},[37,229,230,38,231,232,233,24,234,235,236,237,238,31,28,22,239,240,241,242],"framework","triaging vulnerabilities with ssvc framework","status","planning","CISA","risk-management","nessus","qualys","openvas","cvss","api","prioritization","ssvc","decision-tree",{"skillNo":244,"name":245,"nameZh":6,"description":246,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":247,"categories":248,"keywords":250,"publishedAt":39},"01M6AGD24TTQQM4CXG69E3B9TJ","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\u002FEDR alert needs human classification, concurrent alerts must be prioritized, or a user report or threat-intel IOC match requires initial incident categorization.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmukul975\u002FAnthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Ftriaging-security-incident\u002FSKILL.md",[249],{"categoryNo":119,"categoryName":120,"taxonomyType":121,"taxonomyTypeDesc":122},[128,251,38,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,190,260,191,261,262,263,264,265,266],"triaging security incident","siem","file","ioc","soc","NIST-800-61","NIST","severity","edr","execution","analysis","classification","severity-classification","incident-triage","SANS-PICERL","SOC-operations"]